 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 26, 2015 - 8:38 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
The funny thing about the Ghostbusters reboot is that some are trying to sell an all-female team as "progressive".
The fact that the leads are four women has apparently been controversial to some, which speaks pretty clearly to the state of film and society - that somehow a movie led by four women is somehow not going to be as good as a movie led by four men. Women are 50+% of the world's population. It's not out of line to have them star in movies.
In that sense, it is progressive, since it's not as regressive as traditional male-heavy casting.
The moment something is especially exclusive to a group, it is not. Four guys shooting raybeams at ghosts is not a "male specific act" any more than four women doing it. This is not only simple political correctness - it is shrewd marketing: gender has nothing to do with "ghostbusting", but it does raise a lot of ire, meaning the movie is selling its self on bad word-of-mouth alone. They won't even need an ad campaign at this point.
Personally, I cannot stand Feig's output, but let that say more about me than his work.
I would recommend reading "The Making of Star Wars" by Rinzler. It's a very thorough look, almost half of which is about Lucas's writing process and the various drafts. Lucas's original treatment for that story was a completely different movie than what appeared on screen. Same with Empire, and same with Jedi. Some broadstrokes ideas were the same by the time the movies came out, but really completely different. A treatment is a not even a script - just some paragraphs full of ideas. Sometimes they get retained, and sometimes they get changed. It all depends on what's going to make a good movie. This is what has happened and will happen to Lucas' sequel treatments, and that's how it would have to be anyway.
Well, I'm talking about intent, not end result - the creative act, not the finished product.
If Lucas's original intents were extremely important to him, he would have proceeded with making the movies himself rather than selling Lucasfilm, or worked himself into the deal.
I don't entirely disagree with this sentiment but you have to look at it from Lucas's side: people hated the prequels. And they didn't just hate them, they hated them beyond rationality; a huge tentpole on the emerging internet of the late 90s was hating The Phantom Menace. And while, yes, I totally understand people's disappointment - the language and insane levels of entitlement about it would drive anyone away from the property.
Lucas sold the material for posterity. Now Star Wars and Indiana Jones are "safe" as opposed to something like Frank Frazetta's legacy.
These are also, like, silly adventure movies. They're fun, they carry some emotion to them, sure, but high art? Making sequels to Lucas' movies about starships and space bears, 1/3 of which weren't even written or directed by the man, isn't exactly like writing a movement to finish off someone else's symphony.
I also half-agree with this. Star Wars is artful but not art.
But Lucas had creative control over the product and now that he's let go and the new guard is running amok with it, it calls into question the quality of the product and its future. Lucas certainly wasn't interested in making Han Solo or Yoda movies (correctly so, I might add) but now that Disney can tap that vein, you're going to see an avalanche of product the likes of which no one has ever seen.
Star Wars - good or bad - is no longer from its source. It can no longer be considered "truthful" to its original plan and does not stand or fall on its own original material. Its now simply product, and ceases to be artful and it will make a lot of very adolescent people (who are more attached to the name brand than the quality) very happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 26, 2015 - 7:09 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Cooper
(Member)
|
The moment something is especially exclusive to a group, it is not. Four guys shooting raybeams at ghosts is not a "male specific act" any more than four women doing it. This is not only simple political correctness - it is shrewd marketing: gender has nothing to do with "ghostbusting", but it does raise a lot of ire, meaning the movie is selling its self on bad word-of-mouth alone. They won't even need an ad campaign at this point.
So gender's not an issue...but an issue. For whom again, and why?
Well, I'm talking about intent, not end result - the creative act, not the finished product.
The films be damned; it's all about what Uncle George once scrawled on a dinner napkin, eh?
Star Wars - good or bad - is no longer from its source.
Would you prefer bad Star Wars from a pining-for-retirement Lucas to good Star Wars under new management? False choice? Maybe, but--on your terms--sounds like you'd pick the former.
It can no longer be considered "truthful" to its original plan and does not stand or fall on its own original material.
Isn't quality--as opposed to what you seem to feel is allegiance to scripture--what's most important? And why won't the new films stand or fall on the strength of their material?
Its now simply product, and ceases to be artful and it will make a lot of very adolescent people (who are more attached to the name brand than the quality) very happy.
There's nothing adolescent about arguing that the new Star Wars films must be bad before you've seen them? How is judging them on Lucas' lack of inolvement alone any better than the brand loyalty you allege and decry in others?
And why not art? You're certainly putting your back into underscoring the importance of creative pedigree for a merely "artful"--your qualifier--series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
