Dan Aykroyd gives blessing for Female Blues Brothers movie

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by octagon

What did I twist, exactly?

Were you not suggesting that riding somebody else's coattails could be done creatively and not lazily?

And speaking of not bothering to read things, I'm going to ask - again - why we're even talking about riding somebody else's coattails with respect to Dan Aykroyd and The Blues Brothers.

They're his coattails, no?

Those are YOUR words, not mine.

These are my words: there's a difference between a creative adaptation of someone's work and taking said work to hop on a "trendy" bandwagon and coming off as a hack The latter of that statement is what I believe to be riding off someone's coattails.
You can do a new adaptation of something like Sherlock Holmes or Doctor Who and not fit in the category of coattail riding.

If Aykroyd give his blessing on his own IP, that's his business but after what happened with Ghostbusters, no one has any reason to buy into what he's selling and looks like a quick cash grab.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

You can do a new adaptation of something like Sherlock Holmes or Doctor Who and not fit in the category of coattail riding.

See, this sounds a lot like the way some people bash remakes but carve out exceptions for the remakes they like. Those aren't remakes, those are 'reinterpretations' or 'reimaginings'.

That's convenient but I'm not entirely sure it works that way.

Steven Moffat didn't create Doctor Who or Sherlock Holmes. Instead of creating new properties he chose to attach himself to somebody else's.

You can say 'well that doesn't really count' but yeah, it kinda does.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by octagon

B) Even if it was a reboot that would bring the total of all female reboots to what? Two?

"How many crappy reboots does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand, fifty thousand, a million? How many does it take, Admiral?" - Jean Luc Picard

[brooks101189]

In theory, the idea could work. But I said the same thing with the Ghostbusters reboot and it didn't work. The ONLY way this would work is if they had a killer script, music and cast. Taylor Swift is not a Killer casting choice.

They should just leave it alone

[Uncanny]

Originally Posted by octagon

Indeed they have.

The WIZ? That was a Wizard of Oz rip off with a all Black cast.

[Jeyl]

After Prometheus, the Star Wars prequels, the Sex and the City movies, Fant4stic and the cancellation of a true ALIENS sequel, I'm of the mindset that nothing like this bothers me in the slightest. And despite not living up to expectations, I have a genuine soft spot for the last Ghostbusters movie. I can see where things went wrong but it didn't ruin things the same way as really awful movies have, like some of the ones I listed above.

The Blues Brothers is one of my all time favorite movies. I can't think of a way that Hollywood could ruin that for me. I know because they pretty much already tried it with The Blues Brothers 2000. Now there's a good question. Which movie would you rather watch? The Blues Brothers 2000 or the recent Ghostbusters movie?

If someone is interested in making an all female lead Blues Brothers movie, I'd say go for it! It might actually be good!

[Rzzzz]

Maybe if The Predator is a hit they could remake the original Predator with an all female cast fighting a female monster? I would pay to see that.....

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Makarov

"How many crappy reboots does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand, fifty thousand, a million? How many does it take, Admiral?" - Jean Luc Picard

Hmm, let's see...talking about movies in terms of right and wrong is just dumb so...none?

And ftr, I was responding to the words 'yet another' there. A more apt question would have been how many all female remakes does Hollywood have to churn out before we can say with a straight face 'yet another all female remake'?

I don't know what a reasonable answer to that question would be but I know what it's not.

It's not one.

[rdm5777]

I'm fine with them making this...I'll just ignore it like I did Ghostbusters, Total Recall, & Robocop.

[Vandal Savage]

Blues Brothers is one of those things that is completely specific to a certain time (late 70s/early 80s) and chemistry between two personalities (Belushi and Aykroyd) that it's not something that can be replicated, rebooted, or recreated. Ever.

Look at Blues Brothers 2000.

Just leave it well enough alone.

[Steedeel]

All this needs to stop. Female Blue Brothers for goodness sake. #getagrip.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vandal Savage

Blues Brothers is one of those things that is completely specific to a certain time (late 70s/early 80s)...

I don't really see that. Everything is to some extent a product of its time but The Blues Brothers seems more in the category of Ferris Bueller or Risky Business. Those are definitely associated with the 80s but are more timeless than say WarGames or Red Dawn.

Originally Posted by Vandal Savage

...and chemistry between two personalities (Belushi and Aykroyd)...

No doubt. And even beyond that, the supporting cast and cameos all came together perfectly.

Originally Posted by Vandal Savage

...that it's not something that can be replicated, rebooted, or recreated. Ever.

I don't know about that. I absolutely agree there's a lot more to recapturing or replicating the fun of something like The Blues Brothers than getting the band back together or creating a new band.

The chances of success are definitely not good.

But it does happen. The first Addams Family movie wasn't great but it was decent enough and the second one was freaking fantastic.

Originally Posted by Vandal Savage

Look at Blues Brothers 2000.

Just leave it well enough alone.

I really don't understand this mindset. There's no virtually no downside to making a shitty Blue Brothers knockoff and the potential upside is another really fun movie.

You say look at Blues Brothers 2000. Okay, let's look.

I haven't seen it but by all accounts that didn't work out very well.

But so what?

Has anybody's life been negatively impacted in the slightest by Blues Brothers 2000? Mine certainly hasn't and I can't image how anybody else's could be.

It's a shitty movie? People make shitty movies all the time.

So what?

[Shingster]

What's the downside? Millions of dollars that could be better spent on fresh talent creating something original?

The original Blues Brothers was true lightning in a bottle cinema just like Ghostbusters, realised at a time when soul and blues were actually still big genres and in the mainstream consciousness enough that you could feature the likes of John Lee Hooker and expect some portion of the audience to have a clue who he is. On top of that you've got James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, etc all closer to their prime and, you know, still alive. What the **** do today's twentysomethings know about blues? Who's gonna be the big star cameos in this one? Rihanna? Beyonce? Katy Perry?

Mainstream music is saturated and infested with pop, "RnB" and hip-hop garbage. We live in a time where pop artists like Taylor flippin' Swift can actually get away with marketing themselves as Rock stars if they just add a bit of guitar to their latest autotuned, anodyne hit. Musical genres have basically been eroded to the point of meaning nothing. So what are the options for the studio creating a new generation of Blues Brothers? Aim it at the yoof and have a hit with the likes of Ed Sheeran trying to cover Mustang Sally and murdering it, or you can aim it at the older generation and produce something with integrity but it will bomb harder than Blues Brothers 2000. And who exactly are going to be the new Blues Sisters? The original duo started off as a stand up act from two die-hard Blues fans. What actresses/comediennes are famous for being huge Blues aficionados? Are they just gonna lump Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy together again and hope they can collectively queef out some form of musical authenticity?

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Shingster

What's the downside? Millions of dollars that could be better spent on fresh talent creating something original?

The original Blues Brothers was true lightning in a bottle cinema just like Ghostbusters, realised at a time when soul and blues were actually in the mainstream consciousness and you could feature the likes of John Lee Hooker and expect audiences to have a clue who he is. On top of that you've got James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, etc all closer to their prime and, you know, still alive. What the **** do today's twentysomethings know about blues? Who's gonna be the big star cameos in this one? Rihanna? Beyonce? Katy Perry?

Mainstream music is saturated and infested with pop, "RnB" and hip-hop garbage. We live in a time where pop artists like Taylor flippin' Swift can actually get away with marketing themselves as Rock stars if they just add a bit of guitar to their latest autotuned, anodyne hit. Musical genres have basically been eroded to the point of meaning nothing. So what are the options for the studio creating a new generation of Blues Brothers? Aim it at the yoof and have a hit with the likes of Ed Sheeran trying to cover Mustang Sally and murdering it, or you can aim it at the older generation and produce something with integrity but it will bomb harder than Blues Brothers 2000.

Well said, indeed.

[qb2333]

I agree. Plus I learned a new word: "yoof"

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Shingster

What's the downside? Millions of dollars that could be better spent on fresh talent creating something original?

If the only 'harm' here is other people spending their own money on something I don't like I think I'm going to put that in the 'what do I care' pile.

Anytime anybody makes anything there's a pretty good chance I'm not going to like it and there's a very good chance it won't be particularly fresh or original and I'm pretty okay with that.

If Aykroyd manages to get a new Blues Brothers project off the ground it's not like whatever money he raises is coming out some Fresh and Groundbreaking Entertainment account somewhere.

And you never know, a new Blues Brothers project could be a vehicle for fresh talent creating something original. Granted, Dan Aykroyd's best, most creative days do seem to be behind him and throwing out Taylor Swift didn't exactly inspire confidence.

But you never know.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by octagon

If the only 'harm' here is other people spending their own money on something I don't like I think I'm going to put that in the 'what do I care' pile.

Anytime anybody makes anything there's a pretty good chance I'm not going to like it and there's a very good chance it won't be particularly fresh or original and I'm pretty okay with that.

If Aykroyd manages to get a new Blues Brothers project off the ground it's not like whatever money he raises is coming out some Fresh and Groundbreaking Entertainment account somewhere.

And you never know, a new Blues Brothers project could be a vehicle for fresh talent creating something original. Granted, Dan Aykroyd's best, most creative days do seem to be behind him and throwing out Taylor Swift didn't exactly inspire confidence.

But you never know.

[Shingster]

Well that's true, you do never know, but on the topic of a Blues Brothers remake of the male or female variety we can be pretty damn certain it's going to take a lot of talent - authentic talent - working at the top of their game to make it work. Look at the talent behind the Ghosbusters reboot and how spectacularly that failed to recreate the charm and magic of the original.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Shingster

Well that's true, you do never know, but on the topic of a Blues Brothers remake of the male or female variety we can be pretty damn certain it's going to take a lot of talent - authentic talent - working at the top of their game to make it work. Look at the talent behind the Ghosbusters reboot and how spectacularly that failed to recreate the charm and magic of the original.

Agreed. But that's true of anything, really. I mean, yeah, sometimes creative teams just get lucky or are in the right place at the right time. Sometimes it really is a lightning in a bottle kind of thing.

But more often than not it's talent and work. And even then, it's a crapshoot.

People forget that The Blues Brothers wasn't Belushi and Aykroyd's only feature film collaboration. I'm sure all the talented people associated with Neighbors worked their asses off too but, well...

[Shingster]

Originally Posted by octagon

Agreed. But that's true of anything, really. I mean, yeah, sometimes creative teams just get lucky or are in the right place at the right time. Sometimes it really is a lightning in a bottle kind of thing.

Not really, I don't think anyone other than the CG team were on their A-game when making Avatar for instance. Only the cast of Black Panther were on their A-game. Christ I don't think anyone other than the CG folk again were even on their B or C game when making Jurassic World and look how much money that grossed!

Complete A-game for top talent is not as common as you seem to think.