Ray wrote:Making it a pass the torch sequel would have made everything go over with the fans a lot smoother even if the cast had been all female.

That's just adding another unsupported assertion to those which already fill this thread.

Ray wrote:It's clear you'll always believe the reason this movie failed was because of sexism and not because the movie didn't respect the legacy of the original.

I actually never said that, Ray. But the fact that you chose to frame things in those terms makes your own position clear. Insisting it's not about sexism when no one's brought up sexism rings a bit hollow, y'know?

Sorry, Gendospapa's and your politics tend to blur together sometimes.

Bagheera wrote:It's 30 years after the fact, dude. Keeping the same cast would be asinine (also, at least some of the cast wanted nothing to do with a sequel, so there's that as well).

Star Wars would like to have a word with you.

Insisting it's not about sexism when no one's brought up sexism rings a bit hollow

Sexism hasn't been explicitly stated but neither has the reason as to why people were against the movie in the first place.

TheFriskyIan wrote:Star Wars would like to have a word with you.

<checks Rogue One cast>

Nope, don't think so.

Sexism hasn't been explicitly stated but neither has the reason as to why people were against the movie in the first place.

You don't need to know why something exists to know it exists, though, so this is a moot point.

Bagheera wrote:<checks Rogue One cast> Nope, don't think so.

CGI Tarkin isn't on the cast list but he's still in the movie.

Bagheera wrote:You don't need to know why something exists to know it exists, though, so this is a moot point.

Everyone and their grandmother that was for the movie swore up and down that the opposition was solely because of sexism though. When you have news articles stating "Women are funny, get over it." as an article on the movie, it's clear to see what people think the opposition was about.

TheFriskyIan wrote:CGI Tarkin isn't on the cast list but he's still in the movie.

Yeah, so? You think people are packing theaters to see a dead guy?

Everyone and their grandmother that was for the movie swore up and down that the opposition was solely because of sexism though. When you have news articles stating "Women are funny, get over it." as an article on the movie, it's clear to see what people think the opposition was about.

And how is that relevant to the discussion at hand? I mean, if people think your behavior is sexist they do, but it's not an argument that's been raised in the last page of this thread so I don't see any reason to bring it up.

The difference between Star Wars and Ghostbusters as that there has always been a significant demand for anything Star Wars related. The same cannot be said for Ghostbusters, at least not nearly to the same extent Star Wars has achieved. People don't need a whole lot of extra convincing to go out and see Star Wars.

The point I was trying to make is that the idea of having actors from a movie from thirty years ago is no longer an asinine idea.

TheFriskyIan wrote:The point I was trying to make is that the idea of having actors from a movie from thirty years ago is no longer an asinine idea.

If the movie is Star Wars. Otherwise, eh.

Bagheera wrote:It's 30 years after the fact, dude. Keeping the same cast would be asinine (also, at least some of the cast wanted nothing to do with a sequel, so there's that as well).

TheFriskyIan wrote:Star Wars would like to have a word with you.

Star Trek would also like to point out the movie crossover Star Trek: Generations, or "When Picard Met Kirk..."

Bagheera wrote:If the movie is Star Wars. Otherwise, eh.

What about Star Trek XI? The reboot/continuation/something or other that brought back Leonard Nimoy as Spock 18 years after the last movie he had been in for Star Trek, and over 40 years since the original show had stopped its original run? Hell, Into Darkness was pretty much "Wrath of Khan" 2.0, but it at least tried to be different. Ghostbusters attempted to cash in on the nostalgia of the original two movies, and then brought back the cast of the original for cameos, which seems like a cop out frankly. One or two cameos, yes sure, Bill Murray is always good for a laugh, but almost all of them? They tried too hard, like they were looking for approval.

Ray wrote:Making it a pass the torch sequel would have made everything go over with the fans a lot smoother even if the cast had been all female.

I agree with this, as Star Trek did it gracefully enough (twice!), they could have too, as some sort of retirement or otherwise their proteges, or something. Just a little effort to make this a continuation of the story would have been nice. I didn't really care about the cast being women though (seeing as it was a big deal), it was simply a moot point. The sexism stuff is there, sure, that's the risk with any gender bending of source material, unfortunately.

Now, did I see the movie? Yes, it put me to sleep about 20 minutes in, which only happened with one other recent movie, the Fantastic 4 reboot. So what does that say? That the movie was poorly executed and put me, someone who always has a something on my TV, phone, tablet, or gaming console to listen to or play, to sleep, in a movie theater full of people. I thought I'd give the movie a chance, but it just didn't work for me. Especially with its "We're not the old Ghostbusters, but uh... we're a lot like it. Just, um... try to discount the similarities... we only took the name."

I think the more fundamental issue is does the original cast want to do it or not: the only reason a lot of the original cast in the latest Star Wars is because they wanted to be in it. The original cast of Ghostbusters has waffled incredibly on how badly they want a third sequel, and a critical Ensemble member (Bill Murray) has been adamant that he does not want anything to do with a third sequel. The primary reason he probably appeared here was because it was a small cameo.

When you created a group dynamic like that, it is really hard to justify making more films with the original cast when it's likely you're going to lose that dynamic. Since the key part of the new Star Wars movies is handing off the stories to a newer and younger cast, disassembling that group dynamic is a central part of the story and easier to present.