I deny this, much like the phantom menace and Finland, ever happened.
8 Likes
Can’t much stand him, neither.
Casa de mi Padre was okay, though.
Hey, if they’re still gonna milk the ol Ghostbusters teat dry as if they hadn’t already, why not cast new actors in new roles? Ramis is dead, Murray largely uninterested, and Aykroyd and Hudson couldn’t carry another one on their own. The premise actually supports having new characters, since the titular entity is a company, rather than any specific three-or-four characters. And since the old Ghostbusters were all male (sorry, Annie Potts), why not try something different, if only for the hell of it?
Unless they’re recasting the role of Peter Venkmann, nobody has to. Was he the only great thing about those movies? Wasn’t it a great setup, well-cast and well-scripted and well-executed all round? Sure, the world doesn’t need a new Ghostbusters, but it really didn’t need the two it got. We’re just lucky they got made. A third one would be a bonus if it’s any good at all, and if it isn’t, it’ll just be another wasted opportunity to make a good, funny movie. There’s nothing intrinsically holding it back except unreasonable expectations, both positive and (mostly) negative.
4 Likes
Recasting an all female cast perpetuates the divide in the sexes as it’s clearly a deliberate choice.
Perhaps the Odd Couple’s (female version) apartment could be haunted.
1 Like
That was not the worst of its sins, but you’re right. He was woefully miscast.
I’ll always disagree. They’re only roles, open to interpretation by any number of actors, just like Hamlet or Stanley Kowalski or Sherlock Holmes. Here’s an example from my life experience: I worked on the ABC miniseries version of The Shining back in 1996. Less than two weeks before principal photography was scheduled to begin, the actor cast as Jack Torrance backed out. He felt that Jack Nicholson’s performance in the Kubrick movie cast way too long a shadow, that he’d forever be compared to that iconic performance and there would be no way he could come out of the experience ahead. Not a wholly unreasonable opinion, to be sure. Nicholson’s performance was utterly iconic… but then again, it was utterly Nicholson’s version of Kubrick’s Jack Torrance, and a far cry indeed from the character originally conceived and written by Stephen King. Torrance is supposed to be a deeply flawed alcoholic who loves his family powerfully and desperately wants to be a good husband and father, and yet is slowly driven mad by the malevolent spirits in the Overlook Hotel. Nicholson’s Torrance is nearly maniacal from the outset, and his transformation to homicidal axe-swinger isn’t what you’d call particularly subtle or gradual. Steven Weber came aboard the miniseries production and gave, in my opinion, a far more nuanced performance of what King intended that character to be. Weber would be among the first to admit that the Kubrick movie is hugely successful and influential and a towering cinematic achievement, but he was not afraid to step into that role and inhabit it in a way that Nicholson couldn’t even if he tried… simply because Nicholson is Nicholson, and that gets in the way of anything else.
Personally, I thought the Bandit was a more unforgettable, iconic character. But y’know what I like to imagine? Recasting some of my favorite classic movies that may never get remade, just to see who I’d use if I had the opportunity to remake them. My go-to example is The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Certainly this movie doesn’t need to be remade, since it’s just as entertaining now as it ever was. But if I had to remake it, I’d try Viggo Mortenson as Blondie and Benicio del Toro as Angel Eyes. And yet I can never quite think of a good, solid Tuco. Any suggestions?
4 Likes
I am too, but Kingdom of the Crystal Skull convinced me that a geriatric Indy movie set in the latter half of the 20th century was an even worse idea. At least a reboot wouldn’t have spoiled my fondness for the original movies, cast and filmmakers.
2 Likes
Melissa McCarthy?
I dunno. A role can always be recast. Otherwise Barry Van Dyke would have had even less of a career than he has. But should it be? What would be the point of remaking TGTBATU? (beyond money)
But like I said before, I aten’t the target audience for this GB film. Kids are. I didn’t see the original at the cinema, but I remember going to see the sequel with my granddad (sister saw BTTF 2 with mum at the same time - I probably chose poorly).
And hell, The Thing is a remake. Doesn’t mean I don’t love it.
2 Likes
Piffle. So if only two or three Busters were women, it would somehow be a more valid choice? Was it sexist to make the original Busters all male? Well sure it was, they only let Annie Potts answer the phones! And yet that movie was apparently so awesome with Murray’s unmatchable performance…?
I do understand where you’re coming from, since yeah, making the lead cast all female unavoidably gives us “The All-Female New Ghostbusters!!” but I think we’re addressing different fronts in the battle here. We can bring in just a couple of female comedians like it’s no big thing, women are just as funny as men, no need to make a big deal out of it, the gender divide should be so narrow we don’t even see it anymore, etc. etc. Or we can acknowledge that “female-centric” casts are not the box office poison that so many studio execs feared them to be for the last ten decades, that audiences of all types will flock to see a genuinely funny movie regardless of which restroom in the honeywagon the stars use (spoiler alert: stars have their own trailers, and never use the honeywagon), and if someone directing the movie thinks it’ll be funnier or otherwise more successful with a certain specific cast that happens to be all female, should that director actually reconsider and recast a role or two with males just to make the point that they’re not tryin’ to make any gender point here?
Now if they use a new logo like this, then I’ll readily admit that your concerns are well-founded:
10 Likes
That’s a good example of a movie, like The Shining, which was remade in a spirit much closer to the source material. Then again, I’ve never heard anyone defending the Christian Nyby version as being “too great to remake.”
1 Like
You mean to say… it wasn’t accidental? Why would they do that? Much better that comedies be based in reasonable settings, what good would absurd circumstances, false premises, and in your face tactics be in a comedy, anyhow?
1 Like
Well, because it’s a good story well-told, and there’s no compelling reason not to. Sure, I get the distinction between theatrical plays and movies. Plays have to get revived and recast because each performance is unique to a specific audience on a specific day, so if more people want to see it, they have to keep performing it, whereas a movie is a more-or-less permanent thing, able to be viewed by audiences yet unborn in essentially the same state that its first audiences saw it. But honestly, no movie is perfect. The best movies contain plenty of flaws and imperfections that are masked by the movie’s greatness (or, on some occasions, actually add to that greatness). And yes, I think there’s always room for improvement, even if remakes so rarely succeed as well as Carpenter’s The Thing succeeds.
1 Like
If I were going to recast that film, I’d have Charles Bronson as Blondie, Henry Fonda as Angel Eyes and Jason Robards as Tuco.
Damn, I love Once Upon a Time in the West. Even more than I do the Dollars films.
5 Likes
Yes, but it was also representative of the times in which it was made. You cant get all revisionist with stuff that was made in a time when social norms were so different.
I have no problem with women being cast, but I always cringe when I see stuff like this because it entirely disproves the point they were trying to make with the casting (sex ain’t no biggie) and reinforces the differences between men & women (of which there are few) rather than similarities (of which there are many).
@AcerPlatanoides I take comedy very seriously ಠ_ಠ
1 Like
Well, I’m willing to go on record that I much prefer the Nyby version to Carpenter’s.
5 Likes
I’m working on the assumption that all Latino Badass roles are offered to Danny Trejo first and he’s turned this one down.
Tuco’s an interesting character, with something of an on-screen backstory and family. Although there’s no reason why that role should necessarily be Mexican, I think that if the setting and feel of the movie are to be kept in the remake, there’s enough room for some flexibility.
Chow Yun Fat would be fun and as a Chinese migrant labourer, would fit the scene nicely, and a little chop-socky could work well within the movie.
For a different take, how about Halle Berry? Change the background from bandit to ex- or escaped slave and it’d be an interesting dynamic between Blondie and Tuco.
And yeah, there’s a reason why I’m not in the movie business. 
3 Likes
Hell, he was a Jewish New Yorker last time.
I’ve thunk on this, and my position is remakes are fine, as long as I didn’t like the original.
4 Likes
Very appropriate pic. Seeing as how both IotBS and Carpenter’s The Thing are about people being replaced and thereby losing their humanity. Unfortunately, Carpenter’s characters don’t have enough personality to make one really miss their humanity. (I think it’s mostly the writing. The actors seem to be doing what they can.) I still think it’s quite a good film, but not as great as the original (very different) Nyby/Hawks version.
1 Like
Weirdly enough, as much as I love Kurt Russell, I think he suffers the most in this regard. The movie doesn’t take the time to let us get to know the characters outside of their jobs, and you’re right that the actors are doing what they can with what little the script gives them in the way of backstory and relationships. But I still feel most of them are pretty deftly sketched. I mean, you won’t go far wrong with Brimley, Moffatt, Dysart, and Masur at your disposal, but we really don’t ever get into Macready’s head at all. He’s a hard drinker, and apparently learned to fly helicopters during Vietnam, but he’s such a social misfit and sullen, withdrawn weirdo that it’s difficult to understand why he’s there in the first place.
But I like the youthful grooviness of Windows and Nauls, and especially the guilty terror displayed by T.K. Carter after Nauls cuts Macready loose in the blizzard. I like the stick-up-his-ass middle-management style of Moffatt’s Commander Garry, the back-of-the-school-bus rebellion of Palmer, the quiet, withdrawn misanthropy of Masur’s Clark, the arrogance of Bennings, the ambitious competence of Childs, and the is-he-nuts-or-is-he-right breakdown of Blair. Some truly deft performances, sketched without much on the script pages, and I love this movie as much for those performances as for the assured direction, the bone-chilling production design, and Bottin’s brilliant viscera.
I have to watch the Nyby one again someday, as it’s been too long and I barely remember it.
4 Likes
