So instead of coming up with new ideas, they just rehashed old ideas. Only that isn’t working so well on it’s own, so they just add a twist by swapping genders? Is this really an attempt to make something progressive, or just a marketing ploy? Based on the fiasco with the new Ghostbusters, I am leaning toward the latter.
ETA [quote=“ActionAbe, post:19, topic:83245”]
But is, “Now this time, with wimminz!”
[/quote]
Looks like we are on the same page.
Except I don’t think GB was a fiasco. I thought the fiasco was manufactured.
Back when they were going to do a couple of SHIELD spin-offs, I wanted a show with Sharon Carter (Emily VanCamp), Sif (Jamie Alexander), Mockingbird (Adrienne Palicki), and Maria Hill (Cobie Smulders) — the actors have all been regulars on TV shows, all four characters are kick-ass women, and they are all characters that exist together in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Come to think of it, I still want that to happen. I doubt it ever will, though 
Emily VanCamp, Jamie Alexander, Adrienne Palicki, and Cobie Smulders.
Excuse me,
I guess nows a good a time as any to ask, since it’s in the orbit of this subject.
(anyone): any idea if it’s sexist to like (or even prefer) strong fem leads in your action? What are sometimes, respectfully, referred to as “action chicks”.
I think the show 100 is a prime example.
Correct, fiasco manufactured by Sony to try and distract from the terrible reaction to the trailer (which was almost entirely because the trailer looked shit, not because a handful of misogynist trolls do what they always do on the internet). The internet outrage brigade then rather pathetically did their PR work for free, didn’t appear to have worked though.
I still haven’t seen it, trailer and reviews didn’t make me want to spend money on it, will wait til it’s out on bluray.
Can’t imagine this movie will generate much controversy because of the casting, the original is too old for anyone now to care about (I’ve never seen it). The remakes were ok I guess, but fairly forgettable, I’m sure this will be a similar deal.
Sorry, I should be clear. I agree the fiasco leading up to the film was manufactured. I haven’t seen it yet, so I still can’t comment on if I enjoyed the film or not.
Hollywood is going to have to wait until the last Baby Boomer is dead before announcing a gender-swap remake of Some Like It Hot assuming they don’t want to be deafened by protest.
I want be clear I’m not against remakes on pure principle. I just think Hollwood too often looks at “formulas,” whether it’s zombies, or remakes, or CGI dubstepnoiseexplosiongasms and then insults my intelligence by dangling it front of me like it has a license to print teh monies.
I don’t want regendering or reracializing the cast to become the new thing we do when we make crappy movies, further perpetuating the myth that women and minorities are crappy actors.
[quote=“doctorow, post:1, topic:83245”]Next up, pretty please, an all-woman Sneakers reboot?[/quote]Aww. I would have thought of Sneakers as having a certain sophisticated cleanliness about it that would place it above such things. I guess it can be interpreted otherwise, but it seems like a stretch.
Also, HISHE already illustrated the eventual endpoint of the Oceans films:
Oh yeah, I think you were clear about that in your initial post.
If a function-oriented algorithm existed for creating a blockbuster with a probability curve for a given range of target net revenue, Hollywood would cloud-farm the hell out of it. Right now, the best they’ve got is their zeitgeist dowsing rod known as the marketing department, which is constantly sniffing around for that One Weird Trick that would allow a successful pitch to be written on an Etch-a-Sketch.
I bet they would name it something witty like The Skirty Dozen… 
This is not your imagination. The studios have always been run by folks who were in it primarily to make money, but they knew the movie business: they’d come up through the ranks, been producers, etc. They knew what people went to movies for. But the studios are being taken over by guys who are not movie business people. They’ve come out of retail, out of other businesses where the ideal product is repeatable, predictable, and easily marketable. To them, the studio is a black box out of which money is to be squeezed. And they do not give a fuck about anything else.
How much do you want to bet that many man-children will decry this as
sacrilege, despite never having breathed a word of disapprobation over
the 2001 reboot?
Probably nobody is going to care about this one.
(If you will excuse me I’m off to cosplay as Dapper Danny Ocean while reading my Oceans 11 fan slash fiction)
Of course, it’s well documented that women can’t be considered people unless they show that they can replicate what men have already done and sequelled.
They just can’t be taken seriously if they, y’know, just tell their own stories.
I heard about this on my way to work, and instantly started recasting my own private fantasy remake of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly… but this time as what they call a distaff version.
The hard part for me is figuring out a time and locality that would make sense for there to be a female Blondie, Tuco, and Angel Eyes, since I had a hard time imagining it as a believable Western without it seeming too stunty. Making it contemporary is a bit of a nonstarter, and making it a postapocalyptic future-Western would be, if anything, the cheap & easy way out.
Might be fun to make it set in the American Southwest around the Great Depression, rather than the Civil War, although the events of more than half the movie are dependent upon the Civil War, not just blowing up the bridge.
I guess if it’s set in the U.S.A. at all, it’d have to be during the Civil War (though it’s also fun to imagine this movie taking place in some other, more modern war-torn locality… at least, insofar as any such imagined situation can be labeled “fun”).
As for the cast, I was trying to think of actresses that would be formidable and believable as these characters, not necessarily conventionally gorgeous like, say, Sharon Stone in The Quick and the Dead.
An obvious choice for Blondie might be Gwendoline Christie, since she certainly has the chops, the imposing frame, the horsewomanship skills, and the air of general badassery (as well as being blonder than Eastwood, for whatever that’s worth). She’s also quite good at conveying a lot without dialogue.
I’d also like to see Renee Zellweger go full-Texan in the role. I have a feeling that there are Furiosa-levels of badass potential in her. Somewhere.
Angel Eyes is tough. Ten or fifteen years ago I might have suggested Kathy Bates. She certainly has the range to play such a cold-hearted viper who can occasionally fool people into thinking she’s sympathetic. But at 68 she’s a bit too old for the part. Viola Davis would be a hoot, but might be tough to swallow when she’s in disguise as a Union Army sergeant.
Y’know, that whole “in disguise as soldiers” thing would have to be totally rewritten to be something else. Hmm. This would be a tough challenge!
And as always, I get stuck trying to imagine a new Tuco. What actress could inhabit the kind of slippery, self-serving, cunning-but-not-too-smart villainy that Eli Wallach brought to the role? I know she’s out there (lots of different people could do it, I have no doubt), but I just can’t think of who it might be.
Any suggestions?
Funny. Now I am thinking, if they ever remake it, who would play the Marilyn Monroe role?
I’m waiting for an American version of the Seven Samurai. Though I understand it may upset some people.
Kevin from the new Ghostbusters
How about Cate Blanchett or Tilda Swinton as “Angel Eyes”. Both can play steely.
Edit: Thinking about Tuco, I’m sure loads of actors would jump at the chance to play a part like that. Female roles tend to be very limited in range and “sleezy” isn’t normally one of them outside of a Melissa McCarthy movie.
