Recent Posts

How the new Ghostbusters should be

I know it has already been made, so any wishes of what it should be are null and void. I also realize it isn't out yet, so it could be a decent movie. All I know is what I have seen from the trailers, and, to be completely honest, I am not looking forward to it.

Hollywood has for years been obsessed with the "remake"; taking a classic film or tv show and remaking it with a new cast in a new time period. This isn't a new trend, Hollywood has been doing it for years. Even modern classics like "Father of the Bride" were remakes from older movies. But, the current trend has been to take a classic movie like Ghostbusters (or the recently announced Jumanji remake) and turn it in to a mockery of the franchise by dismissing what made the originals a classic.

Ok, so here are my thoughts:
Most of the original cast is set to be in the new Ghostbusters. In what capacity, few will know until it is released. But, it has been very obviously defined that this is a complete reboot and not a continuation of the original. The new Ghostbusters know nothing of the original events that happened in the 80's or of the original crew.  The original never happened.  This is a new crew, discovering, for the first time, how to capture and contain paranormal entities. But, what if the original did happened, and at the same time, never did? It has been said these movies don't exist in the same universes, so what if both exist, but in alternate universes.

Bare with me.

This is how I would want the movie to end, and nostalgia ensue. The new Ghostbusting crew of ladies are fighting the ultimate baddy, when, the streams cross, tearing a hole in the very fabric of time and space.  This tear reveals a parallel universe where the original Ghostbusters exist and are fighting their own  battle of the ghouls. Both crews see each other and Venkman yells out "Don't Cross the Streams!!!". McCarthy reacts and immediately uncrosses and the tear is fixed.

A short and sweet cameo to show fans that the original still exists out there somewhere. It keeps with the insistence that the new movie is a reboot in it's own universe, but doesn't completely negate the originals.


Star Wars The Force Awakens Theories (so far)

The time has arrived. The moment fan boys and girls and men and women and young children have waited for is finally upon us. The release of a new Star Wars film!

 While it has been 38 years since the original, and 10 years since Episode III, fans have been drooling over the next generation of Star Wars. With fresh faces, and a few not-so-fresh faces, the first in a new line of Disney

Rey (Skywalker)

There have been a lot of online questions wondering how Rey learned the force so quickly and could easily hold her own against Kylo Ren. Some see it as just a plot hole, but what if it is all part of the story. Here is my thought:
Maybe, just maybe,  Rey was trained as a young child just as Kylo was, but Kylo's turn to the dark side made Luke scared that his own daughter would go the way of her grandfather. Knowing how strong the force was with her, he erased any memory she had of that life, and put her on Jakku to protect her (much like Luke was left on Tatooine). But Luke knew that someday Kylo would grow stronger and the only one that could defeat him would be Rey. So Luke isolated himself on the lost planet, and left clues that would only come to fruition at the right time. Rey was only able to access the force after she touched Luke's lightsaber, which released the power and the training she already had deep inside.

But that raises another question; did Rey just suddenly know the Force? Or, was it in her all along?


Take the scene where she takes the BB Droid from the other scavenger. These inhabitants live off what they find. Something as valuable as a working droid (even if no one knew it was the droid) wouldn't be let go of so easily. Another maybe: Rey used the classic Jedi mind trick without even knowing it when she told the scavenger she was taking the droid.


Who Killed Han?

Obi-Wan sacrificed himself at the hands of Darth Vader to help Luke along his path. Later, Darth sacrificed himself to save Luke from the Emperor. The sacrifice of the father to save the son is nothing new in the Star Wars Universe, so why would it be such a stretch to think that maybe Han sacrificed himself for his son Ben (Ren)? Think about it, the saber is in both Han's and Kylo's hands and there is no clear (at least from my one viewing) that Kylo Ren activated it. There are indications that Kylo holds a major grudge against his father, possible a reason he turned away from the light, and Han knows this. After it happens, Kylo says "Thank you".

Of course, anyone I have told this theory about says it is ridiculous, and I should be sent to a mental ward, but, maybe it wasn't Han who activated the saber, but he must have known going to see his son would be a death sentence. 

Anyway, those are a just a few theories so far.

Oh, and here's a cow . . .


Harrison Ford to Play Young Han Solo in Solo Han Solo Movie

Ok, ok, so this isn't official news, but hear me out before you run away screaming in frustration. The new Han Solo solo movie should cast the only person who can play Han Solo; Harrison Ford.

Yes, that is correct, the original Han Solo, who is now in his 70's, should be cast to play a younger version of himself. Think about it. Who else can capture the character like Ford? Who else is qualified enough to know the inner workings of the character? Who else can take the helm of Millennium Falcon?

Harrison Ford, that's who!!

Now, I know, Harrison is old (no offense Mr. Ford). So how could he possible play a younger version of a character he made an icon? Special effects, that's how!!

Take a look at Ant-Man. That little film with Paul Rudd and Michael Douglas. In the first scenes with Mr. Douglas, a young 71 years of age, he is transformed to a younger version of himself. This isn't accomplished by a younger actor with a Mike D voice dub. Nope, he is Michael Douglas all the way.


This was achieved by Lola VFX (great article on just how they did it over at Vulture) by giving a digital facelift to the actor. This wasn't pure CGI, or traditional make-up effects. This was done with a combination of techniques to make the actor look younger. They used the same techniques for previous films such as The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and the transformation of Captain America from lanky boy to muscle-bound hero.

So, why not use the same technique for the new Han Solo movie? Let Harrison Ford act the whole movie in his classic Han-style. Then digitally de-age him.

Because seriously, who else can properly play the character who could actually look like Harrison Ford? Han Solo wasn't that old in the original Star Wars, so unless he is going to be 12 years old in the new movie, he wouldn't be much younger of a Han. So, audiences are expected to believe that a Han Solo, maybe 10 years younger than his first appearance in A New Hope, is going to look completely different?

It is un-acceptable I tell ya!

Here's a cow . . .


A New Indiana Jones May be on the way

The thing I don't like about most "reboots" is that they negate the original. They are either direct remakes of the originals, or slight variations with the same characters recast. This takes away from what the original was, and what made it a classic.

And yes, I am referring to movies that are considered classics. Not always classics like Citizen Cane, but cult classics, or large box office draws. If a movie is to be rebooted, the later is usually true. A movie made a lot of money 30 years ago and continues to be popular three decades later, so the studios are going to suck every penny they can out of it.

How? The reboot of course!

Two of the most recent reboot announcements (aside from Star Wars and more super hero movies than you can count) has been "Ghostbusters" and "Indiana Jones". While the "Ghostbusters" is set to be a sure thing, with a July 2016 release date already announced, "Indiana Jones 4: A New Hat" is still in pre-pre-production.


But one name has come out as a potential heir to the throne; Chris Pratt.

I like Chris, and after seeing GOTG, I can see him taking on the hat and whip. But my fear and most probable outcome, will be a remake of the original.

One option would be to have a new character introduced as a protege of Indy's, maybe a student of Dr. Jones' who gets caught up in an adventure that Indy couldn't do, and a new hero emerges in the Indiana Jones world. Leaving the legend of Indiana, everything he did, still in tack, but passing the hat and whip on to another.

Now, of course "Kingdom of the Ancient Alien Overlords with Big Heads", or something like that,  eluded to the torch being passed to Indy's son eventually. But I think that would be a bad idea as well. For one, Shia LaGoof isn't a viable box office draw anymore, and can't really fill those dusty shoes. And turning Chris into Henry Jones III would be continuing a story-line from a film that wasn't well received, which would be hard to make into a success.

I think Indy, or a new Indy, let's call him Vermont Smith (kidding), needs to maintain the Nazy, WWII timeline and ancient religious relics with God-like powers that can literally melt one's face off and the hero has to save from falling into the wrong hands.

And Disney, seriously, I am looking directly at you, no giant ants or swinging monkeys this time. Once was enough. Not enough enough. Once was too much.

Here's a cow . . .

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Defining | Dealing | Healing