Movies: Oceans Ocho (Oceans Eleven Reboot)

[kurt]

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

Did you watch the original? I'd be willing to guess 99% of the posters here haven't seen it.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

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

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

That's not chump change.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

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

This is quickly becoming the "why isn't there a White Entertainment Television" of these debates.

But hey, if it's a good cast and creative team there is no reason that couldn't be fun ... which is my point this entire thread.

 

[JA]

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

That's not chump change.

Nobody is debating that movies with prominent female casts can be successful, but those films are entirely different from these all-female reboots of films with traditionally all-male casts that the studios have decided to make all at once. Even the demographic is different.

Pitch Perfect and Mean Girls are high-school dramas that audiences, especially teenage girls, can relate to. Bridesmaids is an original comedy.

These all-female reboots are a desperate attempt to milk old franchises, and most people can see right through the ploy. You not only alienate traditional fans of the franchises who seek more respect for the properties and probably would rather see their old favorites reprise their roles or a high degree of faithfulness to the source material.

You also fail to draw in new audiences who don't see an all-female cast as an incentive to watch something they didn't originally enjoy anyway; if a person didn't like Ghostbusters or the Oceans movies in the first place, they wouldn't like it just because the characters are now women. Ghostbusters will always be Ghostbusters; Oceans will always be Oceans. You aren't going to attract new fans, and you aren't going to please the old ones who see that this is more of a gimmick than a thoughtful entry into their beloved franchise.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I, for one, think this series of all-female reboots should continue until every single movie has been rebooted with all-female casts.

You could watch any movie and hit a button like "CC" or "SAP" and poof, all-female cast.

Who says Hollywood's creatively bankrupt?

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Nobody is debating that movies with prominent female casts can be successful, but those films are entirely different from these all-female reboots of films with traditionally all-male casts that the studios have decided to make all at once. Even the demographic is different.

Pitch Perfect and Mean Girls are high-school dramas that audiences, especially teenage girls, can relate to. Bridesmaids is an original comedy.

These all-female reboots are a desperate attempt to milk old franchises, and most people can see right through the ploy. You not only alienate traditional fans of the franchises who seek more respect for the properties and probably would rather see their old favorites reprise their roles or a high degree of faithfulness to the source material.

You also fail to draw in new audiences who don't see an all-female cast as an incentive to watch something they didn't originally enjoy anyway; if a person didn't like Ghostbusters or the Oceans movies in the first place, they wouldn't like it just because the characters are now women. Ghostbusters will always be Ghostbusters; Oceans will always be Oceans. You aren't going to attract new fans, and you aren't going to please the old ones who see that this is more of a gimmick than a thoughtful entry into their beloved franchise.

I wouldn't call Pitch Perfect for Mean Girls dramas at all. You sure you've seen them?

And where are "all these" female reboots? I count three. THREE. In the entire scheme of big studio movies, three of them are genre ideas being reconfigured around females -- none of which have come out.
You're arguing that there's no market for something that hasn't even hit the market yet. We don't yet know if these movies will work creatively or financially. Rest assured, if none of these make money, the studios won't do them anymore.

But this juvenile PRE-EMPTIVE outrage to this issue because it involves female casts is ridiculous though. There are plenty of movies we can question the reason for existing. I can think of a few this summer right now:
Do we really need another Tarzan? Where's the *****ing and moaning about that?
Warcraft? Feels like this is about five years past its prime.
An Independence Day sequel? Was anyone really dying to for a second chapter to a 20-year-old movie that has zero need to have a second chapter?
Alice Through the Looking Glass? They couldn't even get Tim Burton to come back for that one.
A Ben Hur remake?
I enjoy the Jason Bourne movies but its mere existence feels like the most money grab of all the summer money grab movies.
The Magnificent Seven? Another remake of a classic that was remade from a classic. Not to mention sequels and a crap TV show. ... (wait a second ... ALL FEMALE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN!)

Very little outrage about the lack of creativity or the individuals involved in any of those movies though. No one is questioning in the existence of any of those movies.

Some of them probably should have been questioned -- Alice and Warcraft already look like flops. I suspect Independence Day and Bourne and probably Seven will be fine, but wouldn't be surprised if the other examples I pointed out are dogs.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I wouldn't call Pitch Perfect for Mean Girls dramas at all. You sure you've seen them?

And where are "all these" female reboots? I count three. THREE. In the entire scheme of big studio movies, three of them are genre ideas being reconfigured around females -- none of which have come out.
You're arguing that there's no market for something that hasn't even hit the market yet. We don't yet know if these movies will work creatively or financially. Rest assured, if none of these make money, the studios won't do them anymore.

But this juvenile PRE-EMPTIVE outrage to this issue because it involves female casts is ridiculous though. There are plenty of movies we can question the reason for existing. I can think of a few this summer right now:
Do we really need another Tarzan? Where's the *****ing and moaning about that?
Warcraft? Feels like this is about five years past its prime.
An Independence Day sequel? Was anyone really dying to for a second chapter to a 20-year-old movie that has zero need to have a second chapter?
Alice Through the Looking Glass? They couldn't even get Tim Burton to come back for that one.
A Ben Hur remake?
I enjoy the Jason Bourne movies but its mere existence feels like the most money grab of all the summer money grab movies.
The Magnificent Seven? Another remake of a classic that was remade from a classic. Not to mention sequels and a crap TV show. ... (wait a second ... ALL FEMALE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN!)

Very little outrage about the lack of creativity or the individuals involved in any of those movies though. No one is questioning in the existence of any of those movies.

Some of them probably should have been questioned -- Alice and Warcraft already look like flops. I suspect Independence Day and Bourne and probably Seven will be fine, but wouldn't be surprised if the other examples I pointed out are dogs.

There are a lot of unimaginative Hollywood gimmicks. This is the latest/most blatant one, it's simply clouded/rationalized by PC nonsense that essentially gives a creatively bankrupt idea diplomatic immunity.

If you buy into it.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

There are a lot of unimaginative Hollywood gimmicks. This is the latest/most blatant one, it's simply clouded/rationalized by PC nonsense that essentially gives a creatively bankrupt idea diplomatic immunity.

If you buy into it.

I think "because it's women" is a pretty pathetic hill to die on in the name of increased studio creativity.

But I appreciate your honesty. Better than the Ghostbusters bashers who keep insisting that it isn't about the cast. So kudos, I guess.

 

[JA]

I wouldn't call Pitch Perfect for Mean Girls dramas at all. You sure you've seen them?

And where are "all these" female reboots? I count three. THREE. In the entire scheme of big studio movies, three of them are genre ideas being reconfigured around females -- none of which have come out.
You're arguing that there's no market for something that hasn't even hit the market yet. We don't yet know if these movies will work creatively or financially. Rest assured, if none of these make money, the studios won't do them anymore.

But this juvenile PRE-EMPTIVE outrage to this issue because it involves female casts is ridiculous though. There are plenty of movies we can question the reason for existing. I can think of a few this summer right now:
Do we really need another Tarzan? Where's the *****ing and moaning about that?
Warcraft? Feels like this is about five years past its prime.
An Independence Day sequel? Was anyone really dying to for a second chapter to a 20-year-old movie that has zero need to have a second chapter?
Alice Through the Looking Glass? They couldn't even get Tim Burton to come back for that one.
A Ben Hur remake?
I enjoy the Jason Bourne movies but its mere existence feels like the most money grab of all the summer money grab movies.
The Magnificent Seven? Another remake of a classic that was remade from a classic. Not to mention sequels and a crap TV show. ... (wait a second ... ALL FEMALE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN!)

Very little outrage about the lack of creativity or the individuals involved in any of those movies though. No one is questioning in the existence of any of those movies.

Some of them probably should have been questioned -- Alice and Warcraft already look like flops. I suspect Independence Day and Bourne and probably Seven will be fine, but wouldn't be surprised if the other examples I pointed out are dogs.

Mean Girls and Pitch Perfect have a lot of high school, teenage drama in them. They're comedies, of course, but they belong to their own sub-genre where high-school drama is the subject matter.

This is a gimmick. People generally dislike gimmicks, especially when the whole purpose of a movie's existence is to exploit that gimmick.

These are exploitation films. Studios are taking advantage of a current trend to justify the creation of movies that they believe can make a quick dollar, hence Brucesploitation and blaxploitation among other exploitation film genres.

 

[What the Faulk]

I wouldn't call Pitch Perfect for Mean Girls dramas at all. You sure you've seen them?

And where are "all these" female reboots? I count three. THREE. In the entire scheme of big studio movies, three of them are genre ideas being reconfigured around females -- none of which have come out.
You're arguing that there's no market for something that hasn't even hit the market yet. We don't yet know if these movies will work creatively or financially. Rest assured, if none of these make money, the studios won't do them anymore.

But this juvenile PRE-EMPTIVE outrage to this issue because it involves female casts is ridiculous though. There are plenty of movies we can question the reason for existing. I can think of a few this summer right now:
Do we really need another Tarzan? Where's the *****ing and moaning about that?
Warcraft? Feels like this is about five years past its prime.
An Independence Day sequel? Was anyone really dying to for a second chapter to a 20-year-old movie that has zero need to have a second chapter?
Alice Through the Looking Glass? They couldn't even get Tim Burton to come back for that one.
A Ben Hur remake?
I enjoy the Jason Bourne movies but its mere existence feels like the most money grab of all the summer money grab movies.
The Magnificent Seven? Another remake of a classic that was remade from a classic. Not to mention sequels and a crap TV show. ... (wait a second ... ALL FEMALE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN!)

Very little outrage about the lack of creativity or the individuals involved in any of those movies though. No one is questioning in the existence of any of those movies.

Some of them probably should have been questioned -- Alice and Warcraft already look like flops. I suspect Independence Day and Bourne and probably Seven will be fine, but wouldn't be surprised if the other examples I pointed out are dogs.

See this is exactly what I, personally, have a problem with about Hollywood. None of these ideas are that bad on their own, but collectively that's just way too much unoriginality.

And Mean Girls is absolutely a comedy first and foremost, and it's a very good one at that.

 

[jw2]

I think "because it's women" is a pretty pathetic hill to die on in the name of increased studio creativity.

But I appreciate your honesty. Better than the Ghostbusters bashers who keep insisting that it isn't about the cast. So kudos, I guess.

It's not "because it's women". It's because they are unnecessary reboots... that just happens to be all-female cast, which is now an unoriginal trend.

 

[discostu]

People like to blame Hollywood, but audiences are buying the tickets, and box office results shows that sequels, remakes and reboots are the lower risk ventures for these studios.

The Oceans reboot is coming from Warner Brothers studios. As a studio, they have traditionally had a focus on more original content, with a specific focus on having development deals with directors who bring a unique vision.

That business strategy has resulted in eroding market share as audiences have opted to known quantities when it comes to their movie choices, and other studios have profited by pursuing that.

They've adjusted their strategy to follow their competitors and focus on their flagship franchises to increase profitability.

This project comes off as WB looking at their catalogue, seeing the Oceans franchise, assessing whether a straight up sequel is likely. Given that one original cast member past away, and that the other leads are difficult to lock up, then figured how they can reboot. Going female gives them a different gimmick, and allows them to give strong box office draw Sandra Bullock a franchise to build around (who they have a long successful history with, primarily in origins IP films).

If the lack of originality does really bother people, the best response is to go see original films in theatres.

 

[Trap Jesus]

The Expendabelles idea was/is interesting in theory. It's an over-the-top franchise already, and an all female-cast could actually be a pretty cool idea for a film in that series. Only thing is that there just aren't many good + believable female action stars.

With Ocean's 11, it's just like... why?

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

It's not "because it's women". It's because they are unnecessary reboots... that just happens to be all-female cast, which is now an unoriginal trend.

A trend? Again, we're talking about three movies (Ghostbusters, Oceans, Expendables). Two of those haven't even been made yet and could fall through. How many movies do studios release in a year?

And forgive me if I don't believe the folks that say it's not a woman issue. Where's the ire for reboots/remakes like The Magnificent Seven or Tarzan or Ben Hur? What's the difference between those movies and Ghostbusters or Oceans?

Don't give me the time argument either -- Batman (both Keaton to Bale and now Bale to Affleck) has been rebooted multiple times of late. Star Trek has less lag-time between its old and new versions too, to name a couple of properties that have turned much quicker than Ghostbusters or Oceans.

DON'T LET THOSE ICKY GIRLS PLAY WITH MY TOYS!!!!

 

[jw2]

A trend? Again, we're talking about three movies (Ghostbusters, Oceans, Expendables). Two of those haven't even been made yet and could fall through. How many movies do studios release in a year?

And forgive me if I don't believe the folks that say it's not a woman issue. Where's the ire for reboots/remakes like The Magnificent Seven or Tarzan or Ben Hur? What's the difference between those movies and Ghostbusters or Oceans?

Don't give me the time argument either -- Batman (both Keaton to Bale and now Bale to Affleck) has been rebooted multiple times of late. Star Trek has less lag-time between its old and new versions too, to name a couple of properties that have turned much quicker than Ghostbusters or Oceans.

DON'T LET THOSE ICKY GIRLS PLAY WITH MY TOYS!!!!

You're ridiculous. Making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[hototogisu]

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.

We need more originality in Hollywood in general, right? I think everybody agrees on that point. But if it is hard enough as it is to create and get made original movies with original male characters (and male leads are certainly Hollywood's bread and butter), how much harder do you think it is to create and get made original movies with original female characters?

So yes, maybe using existing brands to launch all-female movies is a crutch, but I think it's easy to argue that it's a necessary one at this point. Maybe if these all-female reboots are good and do well with audiences it will open the door to more studios willing to take chances on original movies with original female leads.

With regards to your examples, they are iconic female roles, but let's not act like they were movies created and pitched entirely on the existence of those characters alone. Sarah Connor's movie was called Terminator. Ellen Ripley's movie was called Alien. People were going to going to see the Terminator and the Alien, not to see those two characters. There's a difference between a movie that features a strong female character and a movie created and sold on the back of that strong female character.

These all-female reboots are a desperate attempt to milk old franchises, and most people can see right through the ploy. You not only alienate traditional fans of the franchises who seek more respect for the properties and probably would rather see their old favorites reprise their roles or a high degree of faithfulness to the source material.

You also fail to draw in new audiences who don't see an all-female cast as an incentive to watch something they didn't originally enjoy anyway; if a person didn't like Ghostbusters or the Oceans movies in the first place, they wouldn't like it just because the characters are now women. Ghostbusters will always be Ghostbusters; Oceans will always be Oceans. You aren't going to attract new fans, and you aren't going to please the old ones who see that this is more of a gimmick than a thoughtful entry into their beloved franchise.

How can you possibly argue "this is why all-female reboots don't work" when none of the all-female reboots have actually been released yet? You may be proven right in the long run but you're revealing an inherent bias by arguing this way without any facts to support your suspicions/expectations.

 

[td_ice]

A trend? Again, we're talking about three movies (Ghostbusters, Oceans, Expendables). Two of those haven't even been made yet and could fall through. How many movies do studios release in a year?

And forgive me if I don't believe the folks that say it's not a woman issue. Where's the ire for reboots/remakes like The Magnificent Seven or Tarzan or Ben Hur? What's the difference between those movies and Ghostbusters or Oceans?

Don't give me the time argument either -- Batman (both Keaton to Bale and now Bale to Affleck) has been rebooted multiple times of late. Star Trek has less lag-time between its old and new versions too, to name a couple of properties that have turned much quicker than Ghostbusters or Oceans.

DON'T LET THOSE ICKY GIRLS PLAY WITH MY TOYS!!!!

Yep, agreed.

Eww.....cooties.

 

[BonMorrison]

We need more originality in Hollywood in general, right? I think everybody agrees on that point. But if it is hard enough as it is to create and get made original movies with original male characters (and male leads are certainly Hollywood's bread and butter), how much harder do you think it is to create and get made original movies with original female characters?

So yes, maybe using existing brands to launch all-female movies is a crutch, but I think it's easy to argue that it's a necessary one at this point. Maybe if these all-female reboots are good and do well with audiences it will open the door to more studios willing to take chances on original movies with original female leads.

****ing nailed it.

 

[kingsholygrail]

I'm thinking a lot of these remakes are for the foreign market mostly.

 

[Sharpshooter]

I'm thinking a lot of these remakes are for the foreign market mostly.

Isle of Lesbos?

 

[kurt]

There are a lot of unimaginative Hollywood gimmicks. This is the latest/most blatant one, it's simply clouded/rationalized by PC nonsense that essentially gives a creatively bankrupt idea diplomatic immunity.

If you buy into it.

How is it in any way getting "diplomatic immunity"? It's getting much more negative focus and attention than any other "creatively bankrupt" idea. Totally the opposite of immunity. If anything, it's that all others get some sort of immunity to criticism because nobody notices/cares, and it's just more of the status quo. The Ghostbusters and Oceans Ocho ideas face no end of backlash, because people for some reason feel threatened/challenged/disappointed/critical of a possible contribution to social progress that may be afoot.

It's ridiculous.

 

[beowulf]

I wouldn't call Pitch Perfect for Mean Girls dramas at all. You sure you've seen them?

And where are "all these" female reboots? I count three. THREE. In the entire scheme of big studio movies, three of them are genre ideas being reconfigured around females -- none of which have come out.
You're arguing that there's no market for something that hasn't even hit the market yet. We don't yet know if these movies will work creatively or financially. Rest assured, if none of these make money, the studios won't do them anymore.

But this juvenile PRE-EMPTIVE outrage to this issue because it involves female casts is ridiculous though. There are plenty of movies we can question the reason for existing. I can think of a few this summer right now:
Do we really need another Tarzan? Where's the *****ing and moaning about that?
Warcraft? Feels like this is about five years past its prime.
An Independence Day sequel? Was anyone really dying to for a second chapter to a 20-year-old movie that has zero need to have a second chapter?
Alice Through the Looking Glass? They couldn't even get Tim Burton to come back for that one.
A Ben Hur remake?
I enjoy the Jason Bourne movies but its mere existence feels like the most money grab of all the summer money grab movies.
The Magnificent Seven? Another remake of a classic that was remade from a classic. Not to mention sequels and a crap TV show. ... (wait a second ... ALL FEMALE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN!)

Very little outrage about the lack of creativity or the individuals involved in any of those movies though. No one is questioning in the existence of any of those movies.

Some of them probably should have been questioned -- Alice and Warcraft already look like flops. I suspect Independence Day and Bourne and probably Seven will be fine, but wouldn't be surprised if the other examples I pointed out are dogs.

In what world is Warcraft a flop?

Just because you don't like something does not mean it sucks. And yes, a lot of people are not happy with the idea of so many reboots/remakes especially of "classics" or movies that were remade fairly recently.

Bourne deserves another one as the 4 of them did well, especially those with Damon.

 

[beowulf]

A trend? Again, we're talking about three movies (Ghostbusters, Oceans, Expendables). Two of those haven't even been made yet and could fall through. How many movies do studios release in a year?

And forgive me if I don't believe the folks that say it's not a woman issue. Where's the ire for reboots/remakes like The Magnificent Seven or Tarzan or Ben Hur? What's the difference between those movies and Ghostbusters or Oceans?

Don't give me the time argument either -- Batman (both Keaton to Bale and now Bale to Affleck) has been rebooted multiple times of late. Star Trek has less lag-time between its old and new versions too, to name a couple of properties that have turned much quicker than Ghostbusters or Oceans.

DON'T LET THOSE ICKY GIRLS PLAY WITH MY TOYS!!!!

Tarzan is not a reboot but a new story that takes place after he has come back to civilization.

The Batman stories while technically a reboot, have used different source material so the stories are all new based on various comic series.

I'm all for more female led movies but I think doing reboots/spin offs is just paying it lip service and trying to do something from scratch would be much better.

 

[kurt]

In what world is Warcraft a flop?

I don't see it being called a flop in that post - just an argument being made that several movies can validly have their "reason for existing" questioned, at least from an artistic/creative/cultural/what-are-we talking-about-anyway/not-sexism-i-promise/etc perspective.

 

[XX]

In what world is Warcraft a flop?

It's a flop, hasn't even made 2x its budget back yet.