So there's a Ghostbusters remake on the horizon
The giant Pillsbury Dough Boy, referring to the Statue of Liberty as a "harbour chick", seeing Rick Moranis possessed by a demon and the simply classic Slimer... I'm know I'm not alone in having fond memories of the Ghostbusters movies. And now that there's a remake that seems to actually be happening, the internet is abuzz with opinion.
I've been thinking about who would be good to cast in a remake of these classic 80s movies for a while. Maybe I've just been jaded by Hollywood enough to know that a remake was inevitable since the capacity for original thought seems to be greatly diminished. Either way, I can't say that I was expecting an all female cast. Why? Because a remake would imply that the story is being retold with new actors taking the reigns from the original quartet. That being said, when I saw the news my reaction was one of equal parts cynicism and curiosity.
Cynicism because I find revamps, particularly those which involve "reimaginings" somewhat tedious. It's like trying to rewrite history, well maybe not so severe, but in general I find myself frustrated when people think that they can improve a story which obviously impacted them in some way by subtly (or not so subtly!) altering the storyline. But that's not to say that all reimaginings are worth less than used toilet paper, sometimes they are a fun way of relating a classic tale to a younger, changed generation in a manner which they can appreciate. An example of this could be 10 things I hate about you, a teen movie inspired by the classic Shakespearean play, The taming of the shrew. Remakes which simply change the racial or gender identity of the protagonists I find to be mostly pointless. Sometimes they can be entertaining when the central themes play off ethnic norms and/or stereotypes and maybe they can generate a wider demographic appeal for the story, but in the grand scheme of things I wonder if there was really that much purpose to the endeavour?
Then the latter reaction of curiosity was because I saw that two of the cast members were Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, and after seeing them in the vile, yet hilarious Bridesmaids, I wondered at the possibility of this female Ghostbusters reimagining being a funny, albeit possibly silly, venture. So I think at this point it's safe to say that I am cautiously optimistic that this remake might be worthwhile.
What bothers me though is that the buzz that's accompanied the announcement of this movie and its cast has very little to do with the plot or production, but more to do with the battle of sexes. Well, at least that is the perspective of the feminazis. But then again, what else was I expecting? I can appreciate the sentiments expressed by fans of the original movies that this remake could be disastrous and questioning why it was necessary to change the gender of the protagonists. Of course the feminazis and SJWs took these sentiments as misogyny (what else?), because why should anyone have a problem with seeing the memory of a fond childhood movie possibly ruined by an ill-conceived remake? In their minds it can only be because people don't want to see women in strong roles or making inroads to change the racial/gender demographics of the Hollywood elite. Somehow I don't see an all male cast working for a remake of Charlie's Angels, and I'm sure that if such a remake were to be conceived, these same women would be whining about the fact that their strong female protagonists have been replaced by men. Apparently what's good for the goose is only good for the goose.
I read one "article" on the topic which went further; discussing the fact Winston's role was that much smaller than those of Venkman, Ray and Egon. This was of course related to his ethnicity, he was the token black guy and that was the sum of his importance in the movies. Going down that road has got far too many twists and turns for my liking, whether or not that was the basis for his lesser importance I can't say – I didn't write the story or cast the actors. If this call for greater diversity in films is that important, why not complain about the fact that the remake still only features one black cast member? But the cast apparently wins diversity points for the inclusion of Kate McKinnon because she's openly gay. I really didn't think that what she does behind closed doors with another consenting adult has that great an impact on her acting ability and whether or not she deserves the role. Or maybe I missed something.
As far as the politically correct veil that people are attempting to pull over Hollywood is concerned, instead of trying to reimagine old stories or trying to force the hands of the casting directors to be more socially and demographically conscious, start putting effort into producing stories which lend themselves to casting such people. And make the stories good. Not good on the basis of the cast being more inclusive, good as in people will actually want to see the movie based on its storytelling merits. But I guess that would require more effort than pointing fingers at patriarchy and privileged white males.
So to end my rant against the politically correct thought police, here are my picks for actors if Ghostbusters were to be remade with an all male cast like the original movies.
Peter Venkman – Robert Downey Jr. I can't imagine anyone else pulling off this role which requires being able to play the highly intelligent and cocky bastard with a surprisingly tender and caring heart.
Raymond Stantz – Jonah Hill. He's proven that he's a capable actor and he's the only actor I can think of who could possibly emulate Dan Akroyd in this role.
Winston Zeddmore – Tyrese Gibson. I think he could balance the tough guy persona and comedic presence required for this role.
Egon Spengler – this one I have trouble with. I can't really decide which one of four potential actors because they each have their pros and cons: Andrew Garfield, Matthew Gray Gubler, Jess Eisenberg or Johnny Galecki. All of them have the nerdy appeal, while Matthew Gray Gubler can pull off that almost autistic detachment well, but I don't know how well it would work for him in a comedy.
I've been thinking about who would be good to cast in a remake of these classic 80s movies for a while. Maybe I've just been jaded by Hollywood enough to know that a remake was inevitable since the capacity for original thought seems to be greatly diminished. Either way, I can't say that I was expecting an all female cast. Why? Because a remake would imply that the story is being retold with new actors taking the reigns from the original quartet. That being said, when I saw the news my reaction was one of equal parts cynicism and curiosity.
Cynicism because I find revamps, particularly those which involve "reimaginings" somewhat tedious. It's like trying to rewrite history, well maybe not so severe, but in general I find myself frustrated when people think that they can improve a story which obviously impacted them in some way by subtly (or not so subtly!) altering the storyline. But that's not to say that all reimaginings are worth less than used toilet paper, sometimes they are a fun way of relating a classic tale to a younger, changed generation in a manner which they can appreciate. An example of this could be 10 things I hate about you, a teen movie inspired by the classic Shakespearean play, The taming of the shrew. Remakes which simply change the racial or gender identity of the protagonists I find to be mostly pointless. Sometimes they can be entertaining when the central themes play off ethnic norms and/or stereotypes and maybe they can generate a wider demographic appeal for the story, but in the grand scheme of things I wonder if there was really that much purpose to the endeavour?
Then the latter reaction of curiosity was because I saw that two of the cast members were Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, and after seeing them in the vile, yet hilarious Bridesmaids, I wondered at the possibility of this female Ghostbusters reimagining being a funny, albeit possibly silly, venture. So I think at this point it's safe to say that I am cautiously optimistic that this remake might be worthwhile.
What bothers me though is that the buzz that's accompanied the announcement of this movie and its cast has very little to do with the plot or production, but more to do with the battle of sexes. Well, at least that is the perspective of the feminazis. But then again, what else was I expecting? I can appreciate the sentiments expressed by fans of the original movies that this remake could be disastrous and questioning why it was necessary to change the gender of the protagonists. Of course the feminazis and SJWs took these sentiments as misogyny (what else?), because why should anyone have a problem with seeing the memory of a fond childhood movie possibly ruined by an ill-conceived remake? In their minds it can only be because people don't want to see women in strong roles or making inroads to change the racial/gender demographics of the Hollywood elite. Somehow I don't see an all male cast working for a remake of Charlie's Angels, and I'm sure that if such a remake were to be conceived, these same women would be whining about the fact that their strong female protagonists have been replaced by men. Apparently what's good for the goose is only good for the goose.
I read one "article" on the topic which went further; discussing the fact Winston's role was that much smaller than those of Venkman, Ray and Egon. This was of course related to his ethnicity, he was the token black guy and that was the sum of his importance in the movies. Going down that road has got far too many twists and turns for my liking, whether or not that was the basis for his lesser importance I can't say – I didn't write the story or cast the actors. If this call for greater diversity in films is that important, why not complain about the fact that the remake still only features one black cast member? But the cast apparently wins diversity points for the inclusion of Kate McKinnon because she's openly gay. I really didn't think that what she does behind closed doors with another consenting adult has that great an impact on her acting ability and whether or not she deserves the role. Or maybe I missed something.
As far as the politically correct veil that people are attempting to pull over Hollywood is concerned, instead of trying to reimagine old stories or trying to force the hands of the casting directors to be more socially and demographically conscious, start putting effort into producing stories which lend themselves to casting such people. And make the stories good. Not good on the basis of the cast being more inclusive, good as in people will actually want to see the movie based on its storytelling merits. But I guess that would require more effort than pointing fingers at patriarchy and privileged white males.
So to end my rant against the politically correct thought police, here are my picks for actors if Ghostbusters were to be remade with an all male cast like the original movies.
Peter Venkman – Robert Downey Jr. I can't imagine anyone else pulling off this role which requires being able to play the highly intelligent and cocky bastard with a surprisingly tender and caring heart.
Raymond Stantz – Jonah Hill. He's proven that he's a capable actor and he's the only actor I can think of who could possibly emulate Dan Akroyd in this role.
Winston Zeddmore – Tyrese Gibson. I think he could balance the tough guy persona and comedic presence required for this role.
Egon Spengler – this one I have trouble with. I can't really decide which one of four potential actors because they each have their pros and cons: Andrew Garfield, Matthew Gray Gubler, Jess Eisenberg or Johnny Galecki. All of them have the nerdy appeal, while Matthew Gray Gubler can pull off that almost autistic detachment well, but I don't know how well it would work for him in a comedy.
Comments
Post a Comment