Movies: Oceans Ocho (Oceans Eleven Reboot)

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

If it's coming at the expense of new and original ideas, I care. It's not so much this one movie as it is a growing tend of said remakes and reboots and sequels and super hero movies. It's not a new thing. I'm not saying it is. But it is becoming more prevalent.

Fair enough.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

The "just make more movies for women" argument is both naive and a little silly. It's naive because it's pretty extensively documented that isn't a lot of great material out there for women in the first place and certainly nothing approaching the volume of work men can get. (Where's that Black Widow movie?)

It's silly because when an idea like this comes up and it does create interesting opportunities for actresses, people get pissed off about it.

Women can be in movies, but only in CERTAIN movies and CERTAIN roles.

And again, to be crystal clear, the government is not going to force you to watch this movie nor is it going to knock down your door and confiscate your DVDs of the George Clooney version.

Part of that is there are not a lot of actresses (very few really) that are big box office draws and can drive a movie on their own. Audiences (men and women) just aren't interested in female-driven movies. It's why the Ghostbusters re-make will likely bomb and an Ocean's 11 re-calibration will too.

 

[JA]

The "just make more movies for women" argument is both naive and a little silly. It's naive because it's pretty extensively documented that isn't a lot of great material out there for women in the first place and certainly nothing approaching the volume of work men can get. (Where's that Black Widow movie?)

It's silly because when an idea like this comes up and it does create interesting opportunities for actresses, people get pissed off about it.

Women can be in movies, but only in CERTAIN movies and CERTAIN roles.

And again, to be crystal clear, the government is not going to force you to watch this movie nor is it going to knock down your door and confiscate your DVDs of the George Clooney version.

It's easy money to remake a film with the opposite gender. The film studios have all discovered this, and so there is now a whole wave of remakes being made in this fashion. The studios are being opportunistic.

I don't like the Clooney films either nor do I like Clooney as an actor, but I disagree with this new moneymaking scheme.

Create something original where women define the roles -- don't piggyback off of old franchises where the roles have already been defined. Do something fresh and create new, iconic roles that will help to define twenty-first century popular culture. This should be the golden age of material for female actors.

People have said in recent years that Hollywood has run out of ideas. These all-female remakes epitomize that statement. We don't want Paranormal Activity 20 or Scary Movie 9. We don't want these remakes either; it's no coincidence that they're all happening at the same time -- it's a new way to milk old franchises. Let's see something new. It would be terrific to see some great films where the roles are defined by women.

 

[hototogisu]

Why not just create an original all-female property or adapt other all-female properties to the big screen if the studios care so much about all-female casts? I don't see anybody asking for these films, much like nobody is asking for any more films from Happy Madison Productions. These are cash grabs with very little integrity to the properties. The films aren't being made because there's a story to tell; they're made because it's easy to remake a film with the opposite gender and sell it as new.

Or you could just look at it as, Hollywood is going to be remaking these films anyway, but at least the all-female angle is a somewhat different twist.

Would the Ghostbusters remake be perceived to have more integrity if it starred Adam Sandler, Kevin James, David Spade and Rob Schneider instead?

Basically, if we're going to bash remakes and Hollywood's lack of originality, why not bash them all equally?

Anyway, all that said, it's jumping the gun just a bit to deride all of these all-female remakes when none of them have even actually been released yet. I agree Ghostbusters doesn't look good, but damning a movie off a trailer is a foolish exercise.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Why not just create an original all-female property or adapt other all-female properties to the big screen if the studios care so much about all-female casts? I don't see anybody asking for these films, much like nobody is asking for any more films from Happy Madison Productions. These are cash grabs with very little integrity to the properties. The films aren't being made because there's a story to tell; they're made because it's easy to remake a film with the opposite gender and sell it as new.

Bridesmaids made $288 million US
Pitch Perfect - $115m
Pitch Perfect 2 - $287m

Someone out there seems ok with entertainment featuring a prominent female cast.

It isn't a coincidence that people involved in those movies are also involved in Ghostbusters and this proposed Oceans movie.

Hollywood may not be original, but it isn't completely stupid. They see those numbers, they see what more genre-type entertainment does and they're combining the two. Doesn't mean these movies will work, but it doesn't make them bad business ideas.

And of course it's a cash grab! These big studio movies are business, not charity.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Or you could just look at it as, Hollywood is going to be remaking these films anyway, but at least the all-female angle is a somewhat different twist.

This.

Again, it's not even that I think it's a great idea, but the gender flip at least IS an idea.

At one point a Ghostbusters reboot was rumored to have Channing Tatum and Seth Rogen. Something tells me if that movie had gone forward I don't think there'd be as much ire about its existence as there is about the Wiig version.

 

[JA]

There is supposed to be an all-female Expendables too called The Expendabelles.





Sigourney Weaver said no.

 

[beowulf]

Looks like this is less of a reboot than a spin-off.

So, right now, the speculation is that Sandra will play Danny Ocean’s sister, also a charming ex-con, obviously. Sandy and her crew have beef with a gallery owner and the plan is to steal a necklace from the Met Gala to frame the nemesis. Here was my initial reaction, and I need help with this: why did the guys get to rob a casino and the lady thieves are all about ball gowns and fashion parties? And then my secondary reaction was like… well, f-ck, why can’t women be in movies featuring style, fashion, and fun without being accused of being derivative?

 

[Dr Pepper]

Would you consider the 2001 Oceans Eleven to be a less original piece of work (as its a remake) than the two sequels it produced?

Well I think there's something to be said for a remake of a franchise (or single movie) that is decades old, compared to what we have here where the film is relatively new.

Why they continue to remake the Oceans franchise, I'm not entirely sure.

Maybe next they'll do an all-cartoon dogs version and aim it at kids.

 

[What the Faulk]

There is supposed to be an all-female

I don't have as much of a problem with this since The Expendables is all about over the top action and an all-female cast is a nice and different take on the action genre. Plus it isn't a remake.

 

[Sharpshooter]

I've always liked Sandra Bullock, so i'll give it a chance. She seems like a good anchor for the cast.

Cate Blanchett
Helena Bonham Carter
Elizabeth Banks
Mindy Kaling

and 4 more open spots.

 

[kingsholygrail]

I'd love to see the market research that showed there was a demand for this.

 

[jw2]

All women cast? That's discrimination. We should do something about his. Class action lawsuit.

 

[kurt]

It's definitely par for the course. Hollywood has been regurgitating the stories since the day it opened for business. Tapping and re-tapping the same stories and ideas is not a new phenomenon.

I do take some issue with your time argument:

Star Trek (2009) came out 7 years after the last Trek movie and 18 years after the last movie with the original cast. (technically a sequel given its events, but really a reboot Trojan horsed into a sequel, which was clever).

Batman Begins (2005) was eight years after Batman & Robin and 13 after Batman Returns.

Hell, the entire James Bond series has been rebooting and reimagining itself every 10 years or so since the early 1960s.

I didn't hear a lot of bellyaching around these parts about those ventures.

My point is - I don't think people around here really do hate reboots/re-imaginings/remakes in general, they only hate them when it involves actors/directors they don't like. I really enjoy the Oceans movies, but it isn't like it's sacred text.

Posters decry the lack of imagination and creativity in Hollywood yet happily line up for predictable assembly line super hero movies (many of which I like as well!).

My personal stance is -- Who cares?

A remake does not in any way diminish the version you prefer. You can still watch that one, nor do you have to see the remake/reboot.
There are much greater affronts to entertainment than someone looking at a fun movie and saying, "hey lets make a new version of this fun movie."

preach

 

[kurt]

This is more a knock on the sudden reboot trend more than ladies in it. I guess Ghostbusters is bothering me more than I'd like to admit.

I'm not sure there's a such thing as a "sudden reboot trend".

 

[kurt]

Why not just create an original all-female property or adapt other all-female properties to the big screen if the studios care so much about all-female casts? I don't see anybody asking for these films, much like nobody is asking for any more films from Happy Madison Productions. These are cash grabs with very little integrity to the properties. The films aren't being made because there's a story to tell; they're made because it's easy to remake a film with the opposite gender and sell it as new.

You don't see anybody asking for these films, and refer to them as cash grabs. Keep in mind that if nobody is asking for them, there is no cash to grab.

 

[GarbageGoal]

Cast is gonna need another A-lister like a ScarJo or a JLaw and maybe one more younger gal like Emma Stone or someone real adept at comedy like Anna Faris. Clooney/Pitt flicks were a murderers row of A-list talent, but they were all buddies which is why I guess they did it without breaking the bank on salary.

 

[Sharpshooter]

Cast is gonna need another A-lister like a ScarJo or a JLaw and maybe one more younger gal like Emma Stone or someone real adept at comedy like Anna Faris. Clooney/Pitt flicks were a murderers row of A-list talent, but they were all buddies which is why I guess they did it without breaking the bank on salary.

That would actually be kinda cool.

Emma Stone, Halle Berry, ScarJo, Jlaw, or Charlize Theron, would be my preferred additions.

Now that would be a heavy-weight A-list all female ensemble that I would gladly watch.

 

[Voight]

So stupid. The original was fantastic, this is just gonna be another one of those ****** all-female remakes of good movies.

 

[Sharpshooter]

So stupid. The original was fantastic, this is just gonna be another one of those ****** all-female remakes of good movies.

I dunno man. Give it a chance. With A-list actors, and a witty, solid script, this could be everything that the Ghostbusters crap-fest isn't.

Keep an open mind. There are so many great female actors out there. If they're going to do a huge ensemble spectacle, then I think that's kinda cool.

 

[XX]

"but they're all female this time!" isn't a strong enough premise for a lot of this crap.

 

[GarbageGoal]

So stupid. The original was fantastic, this is just gonna be another one of those ****** all-female remakes of good movies.

You mean the 1960 version?

Or the Soderbergh remake?

They were both fun.

And the last one (13) was garbage. 12 was unmemorable....was that the one in Italy?

 

[USC Trojans]

An all female ALL-STAR cast should be interesting.

The Clooney version had a bunch of big names like Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Cheadle, Garcia, Reiner, Affleck. If they can assemble an A-list cast of females that is not for a chick flick, I'd probably watch it.

 

[The Drop]

Can't wait for the all male reboot Charlie's Angels.

 

[JA]

You don't see anybody asking for these films, and refer to them as cash grabs. Keep in mind that if nobody is asking for them, there is no cash to grab.

I think the studios expect these to make money, but general audiences are smarter than that. They recognize this sudden trend of all-female remakes and spinoffs as a gimmick and that the studios have just found another lazy way to crank out low-integrity movies.

It would do far more to advance social equity among women and men to actually put some thought and creativity behind female roles. People want innovative films. Ellen Ripley is an iconic female character. Sarah Connor is an iconic female character. We need more original female lead characters in original works. Women need more unique, definitive roles so that future generations can look back at these next few decades as ones defined largely by unique, iconic female-centric fiction. That would do far more than to rehash old properties and incur the backlash of those who recognize it as a gimmick.