|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 15, 2019 23:18:43 GMT
Parasite Storytelling.
I want to coin this as a phrase.
What this means is that someone has an idea for a story, but they don't know if it can stand on it's own. Instead of taking the risk, they attempt to improve the odds by latching it onto a known brand or property in an attempt to guarantee success. As typical for a parasite, it does great harm to the body it has latched onto.
I want to offer up Star Trek Discovery as an example. There are a lot of other examples, but let's just consider STD. There are some ideas in it that could be fine on their own. Some of them not even plagiarized. You could tell a story about a war in space being fought with magic mushrooms, that could be very interesting. I mean, anything can be interesting if told right. The problem is that it doesn't fit with Star Trek. Star Trek already has its own lore and science that has been established. It's like introducing Hogwarts into the Enterprise. Not saying there's anything wrong with Hogwarts, just that if the transporters suddenly worked by waving a wand and yelling "Onerarium" that would raise some eyebrows. Sure, that's an outlandish example, but this is a thing we keep seeing over and over, old properties with ideas that don't seem to fit.
Now the Star Trek brand seems to be in decline. Even the " Jean-Luc Picard is back" thing is in serious doubt. Something that should excite the fans, but somehow isn't. Parasites have weakened the body.
Here's another one I want to explore.
Bully Reboot/Sequel.
This is a little different than Parasite Storytelling. The "Bully Reboot" would be the retelling of a older story with efforts to demean or damage the old story in some way. Either specific characters or some other part of the story. Sometimes overt but often subtle. It is purposefully causing damage in order to bolster its own importance.
Let's look at Ghostbusters 2016. In this movie there's a scene where one of the main characters releases a ghost which leads to the death of paranormal debunker who just happens to be played by Bill Murray. Effectively killing Peter Venkman. There is also the main villain of the movie who seems to be a thinly veiled fanboy who has to suffer all sorts of demeaning attacks, including getting a proton stream in the nuts at one point.
And of course let's look at The Last Jedi. Luke discovers that Rey and Kylo are force masturbating together (or whatever the fuck they were doing). Then Rey demands answers from Luke, when he refuses she physically attacks him, defeats him, and makes him cower to her. An attempt to make her appear superior even though in reality she had no right to any answers and was just beating an old man into submission. Presumably she also took his milk money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 16, 2019 5:49:57 GMT
There is also the Spit Take. It makes you take another look at something that you thought you were familiar with.
Thing about this is, its a reboot or a retelling, but it does so in a way that changes something very fundamental about the original work in an attempt to make it more interesting. This is neither good nor bad, and has had some success. The most successful example I can think of is Wicked. Oz is a dictatorship and the Wicked Witch Of The West is good.
Of course, in a hefty chunk of bandwagoning, they've tried to ape this with Maleficent and it was... meh.
It can also fail spectacularly if the attempted change is simply not drastic enough and you end up with a straight remake that isn't really different enough to be good or interesting, but feels just off enough from the original that it can't capture the heart of that original so feels dead.
Or you change enough to make it trash. Like the latter two Hobbit movies and the ending of the first one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 16, 2019 18:55:12 GMT
Without talking to the artists that made it (and even then they could just lie) its hard to be certain of a creators motivation.
A lot of the time the impression of the Bully Reboot is craeted by the media around the product.
Lots of poeple defending Ghostbusters 2016 did so by dumping on the original. Theere were tons of articles saying it was never that great, it was sexist and a load of other silly stuff.
The idea was to raise up the new one by running down the old one.
Obviously this backfired as it just made fans annoyed, but it makes it hard ot judge the film makers intentions.
I cant see the film in a neutral way because there is too much around it.
There is the comparisson to the original and the culture happening around its release.
Was the film slamming the orignial deliberatley? Or do we interpret it that way becuase so many around it were slamming the original?
Also Bill Murray is the funniest thing in that movie.
Not because hes actually beign funny, but becuase hes doing the literal minimum he can.
hes reading lines in a flat voice while doing nothing.
He even sits down for most of the scene hes in.
Walks into a room, sits down, then dies.
Its almost like Sony black mailed him to take part (they did. Not kidding. There were leaks.)
He knows he is in a turkey and is not goign to lift a finger to save it.
he ruined Osmosis Jones pulling that shit! I would NEVER caste bill murray if he doesn't want to be there. He will fuck your film up.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaealix on Jan 16, 2019 19:08:08 GMT
...I remember this as being something I ran into on a level-where someone basically tries to force issues and ideals into a narrative not particularly built to answer or deal with them. It was this online literature course, and every discussion, sooner or later, the idea of Feminism and that particular paradigm would appear in the conversation. And I never really understood why they kept bringing it up honestly.
|
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 16, 2019 23:07:35 GMT
he ruined Osmosis Jones pulling that shit! To be fair, that is Osmosis Jones you're talking about.
But yeah, Bill barely looks like he wants to be in movies he actually wants to be in, it's a mistake to try and force him to work on something he doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 16, 2019 23:14:37 GMT
Look osmosis Jones had some good stuf in there!
It was way too gross but there was some creativity and nice animation and a good cast!
Its like inside out but instead of the mind its your digestive system.
Okay so it might not have been great...
But Bill Murray DESTROYED that film.
He's the living person whose life is at stake that the germs and things live inside.
But he phones it so badly that every scene hes in is embarrassing.
Look the film might never have been a classic but a lot of animators worked on it so its a bit of dick move to just trash the film!
I dunno...maybe Osmosis Jones tried to sue him or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 17, 2019 19:10:13 GMT
Okay so you might think I am being a bit harsh on Ghostbusters 2016.
Well the film was bad.
*audience* how bad was it?
So bad they are doing ghost busters 3 which follows on from ghostbusters 2 and pretends 2016 never happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 17, 2019 19:33:18 GMT
Is that really a good idea now that Harold Ramis is dead? It's hard to overstate how important he was to the franchise. I mean, Aykroyd has a great mind for ideas but his crazy needs to be reigned in, and Harold was good at that. Ghostbusters would have been something akin to Nothing But Trouble without him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 17, 2019 19:48:35 GMT
No its a horrible idea and I'm sure it will suck.
Without Egon what is even the point?
I wonder though...
In order to avoid admitting their narratives are wrong, will those that cheered for 2016 hate this if its good, and will the people who bashed 2016 say they love this even if its shit?
|
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 18, 2019 4:47:13 GMT
I have no optimism for this.
Funny thing is I never really hated Ghostbusters 2016. Certainly not on the level that I hate The Last Jedi. I mean, don't get me wrong, Ghostbusters was bad, but it didn't feel terribly insulting. It was just a missed opportunity to make something worthwhile. I'm pretty much on the same level with it that I am with Terminator Genisys. The only difference is that I can actually enjoy Genisys while seeing it's glaring and insane flaws and I really can't do the same with Ghostbusters. The choices made in Genisys were so baffling that they were hilarious, the choices made in Ghostbusters were just uninspired.
I made this point before, but take the new Ecto1.
What's the joke here? It's a hearse? So it's good for one dead body joke, and a bad one at that.
*guy in the back* "But wasn't the first Ecto1 was a hearse too?"
No, it was an ambulance, and an extremely outlandish one at that. What's more it's exactly the type of vehicle that someone like Ray Stantz would fall in love with and get ripped off for.
That look on Peter's face at the end is small, subtle, and absolute gold. There is nothing remotely on that level in the new one. |
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 18, 2019 17:37:07 GMT
That's the thing with Bill Murray, when he doesnt want to play he will fuck your movie in the ass.
But when he's on form, hes legendary.
Ghost busters 2016 was on the same level as the robocop remake or total recall remake.
A totally forgettable remake that isn't in continuity with the original so is of no value to anyone.
The clever thing with a soft reboot is even if it stinks, its tied to the original so is at least somewhat relevant in the future.
The separate remake can just be totally disregarded.
The ONLY reason ghostbusters 2016 is any more memorable was all the (large manufactured) controversy around it.
There is nothing else of note to it.
The whole concept was so hilariously flawed.
Making a comedy aimed at women but with the budget of a giant block buster wiht expensive special effects. Even if hte effects didn't look like horse shit, it was a nuts tactic.
Chick comedies can be very profitable, don't get me wrong, its a valid genre. But they are normally lower budget, hence why they are profitable! The women who go see romantic comedies aren't goign for the special effects so adding those to the film is a waste of time and more importantly a waste of money. Its spending money for no additional return.
COmedies are always less profitable because they don't translate to foriegn markets as well (your word pay and cultural references aren't going to amuse the chinese!) So taking a movie like that an slapping on a giant monster budget is nuts.
Even if the movie hadn't been aggressively meh, the premise was always fighting an uphill battle to make money
The whole iea of marketing to women by putting women in as the heroes...I'm not sure if thats a great plan. I'm not saying it can't work (wonder woman did good) but it seems putting in a hunky guy works more effectively to lure in the ladies. Look at Aquaman! That made a billion by marketing around beef cake!
I know that generalising, but selling movies is about broad appeal, and the guy in Aquaman is clearly both broad and appealing to the ladies.
|
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 18, 2019 20:21:37 GMT
I think the beefcake element was the role that Chris Hemsworth was supposed to fill. The problem was that other than being a good looking guy he didn't satisfy any other element that women are looking for in a man. He was excessively stupid and incredibly goofy. A woman might not mind if their man is a little goofy, but it can't be over the top. Women might fantasize about a guy that's nothing but buff with no other qualities in bed, but to actively seek a relationship with one? No way. He was supposed to fill a role similar to Janine, but Annie Potts wasn't cast in that role because she was hot. She was funny and witty with an air of competence under a harsh accent. Chris was just a guy that the cast could lust over.
What's more there was romance in the first Ghostbusters. There is ZERO attempt at romance in the remake. Very odd for something that is supposed to be aimed at a female market. Chicks love romance.
The idea of an all female cast in Ghostbusters could have worked, but you have to have a strong script. By all accounts the movie had some sort of outline of what they wanted to happen and just let the cast fill in the blanks with improvisation. Now, they had a lot of talented women on the screen, but that's an impossible task for anybody. Things that seem funny at the moment because you've been sitting there for 8 hours on one scene and are getting slap happy aren't going to be funny out of context.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 18, 2019 20:48:43 GMT
When I first heard the idea I thought it might be cool.
If htey are going to remake it, might as well do something different!
yeah Chris Hemsworth was kinda wasted. Women want a strong confident guy usually. Maybe hes tough but caring deep down.
An idiot that they look down on isn't going to get many chicks interested.
In Thor Ragnorok (and excellent film) he was much better used (generally, as well as for chick appeal). He was funny and stuf but actually competent and cool. For women, good looks along isn't generally enough!
I think that was sort of a self defeating element. The political messaging made them want to make the man a bafoon to make the women seem better by comparison...but that makes women not interested because the man has no appeal to them.
I think that also explains why there was no romance.
Its an odd thing...people think adding a female love interest is sexist...but companies only do it to try and pander to the female audience with a romantic sub plot.
|
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 18, 2019 23:08:44 GMT
Adding the female love interest can be sexist. Like all those action movies where a hot chick is thrown in usually isn't to pander to the female audience, it's to have a hot chick in the movie and (hopefully) some gratuitous topless sex scenes. There are exceptions to that. In Terminator Sarah Connor does appear topless, but the character isn't an afterthought, nor is the romance forced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 19, 2019 0:37:27 GMT
Terminator has the most essential to the plot romance plot and sex scene ever!
Them fucking is vitally important to the fate of humanity!
Its true, it can be very sexist. I think the more sexist ones are where its less romance and more "getting topless" as their primary function.
Plenty of those 80s and 90s action films (which had no pretense of appealing to women at all) gave the hero a useless but large boobed woman to rescue and abruptly have sex with.
In Under Siege, the terrorists pretend to be entertainers for a party on the ship and bring a stripper in a cake.
For some reason they bring a real stripper who is not in on their plan.
they couldn't find ONE woman to go along with them I guess.
She falls asleep in the cake, the terorrist forget about the fact they brought her and just leave her in the cake.
Than segal kicks the cake, she wakes up, gets otu of the cake with her eyes closed and takes her top off before realising something is up.
They wanted to get boobs in that movie soooo badly.
|
|
