‘Ocean’s 8’: the female-driven caper spinoff

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 hours ago, Relic said:

But you have seen every Marvel movie in the theaters? Look, if you want higher quality form Hollywood stop paying it for all the shit it produces. Stop paying for sequels. Stop paying for reboots. Stop paying for carbon cut out movies. Stop paying for dreck and shit and maybe eventually we will get real movies again. 

No, I haven't. I kind of burned out right around Avengers 2. 

[Castel]

3 hours ago, Risto said:

I was talking about BP tangentially but here is a thing... Should they be making such a big fuss about having an African cast for the well, movie happening in Africa. That is my problem. That is like announcing soccer match you say: "You will see two teams of eleven players" It should be normal, it should be expected. Well, it isn't and now we are where we are. I do get it is a win, and every single time when we have female category at Oscars being equally strong and competitive as male, I see it as a win. When we hear that movies with women in the center can earn money and even be box office hits, it is a win. When we know that one woman is paid more than (par one) any other actor in Hollywood, that is also a win. And as much as I can see that they are leading us to right direction, it is not that those things also raise whole new set of questions.

What exactly counts as a "big fuss" here? Maybe we should be more concrete on that. 

 

Cause talking about having a majority African-American cast doesn't seem like a big deal given that other films (including Marvel films) have been criticized for how they represent certain groups and it's not that out of the pale for some people to wonder how they'll handle it. Not to mention it's just...going to come up in the early casting talks. 

It should be one way but it isn't (and,arguably, even in an egalitarian society it could end up being rare) and it seems odd that the proactive are the ones who should take the flack for that, it's not some Hollywood exec sitting on the sidelines breezily talking about the issue, it's someone putting their money where their mouth is.

Quote

You know, you may be right... But, for me progressive thinking is when you cast, IDK, Denzel Washington or Will Smith in a role that can be played by IDK, Russel Crowe or George Clooney (just examples). In roles where the race isn't prerequisite. The last several years, at least in Hollywood movies, we see African-American actors and actresses playing more and more roles that are defined by their skin color. Basically less rap and slave movies for them...

 

Progressive is also putting a hundred million down on a movie with a majority African-American cast in the days when some people are claiming that black people (including the Denzel Washington you mention) don't sell overseas. 

I don't see why progressive moves should be limited to color-blind movies. Movies about slavery (there's been like....one rap movie I can think of off the top of my head) may seem played out  but this isn't that. It's a Marvel film about an established character that's about as old as my father. He has as much a right to be brought to life as anyone. 

If you want characters who aren't defined by their race or nationality (at least in current canon) War Machine and Falcon and Luke Cage are still there, right now in the Marvel universe. This particular character's circumstance invites discussions on the cast. That happens too.

[Dr. Pepper]

5 hours ago, Risto said:

I was talking about BP tangentially but here is a thing... Should they be making such a big fuss about having an African cast for the well, movie happening in Africa. That is my problem. That is like announcing soccer match you say: "You will see two teams of eleven players" It should be normal, it should be expected. Well, it isn't and now we are where we are. I do get it is a win, and every single time when we have female category at Oscars being equally strong and competitive as male, I see it as a win. When we hear that movies with women in the center can earn money and even be box office hits, it is a win. When we know that one woman is paid more than (par one) any other actor in Hollywood, that is also a win. And as much as I can see that they are leading us to right direction, it is not that those things also raise whole new set of questions.

 

But that's the thing.  HOllywood has such a bad record that this actually is a big deal.  There's a never ending list of films set in Africa with a predominantly white cast or with a story that focuses on white characters or with a white lead.  There's also a never ending list of superhero movies where the superhero is always white, even when they are aliens from another galaxy.  I mean, why the fuck is Superman/girl always fucking white?  The only black Asgardian is a gawd damn doorman.  So I find the Black Panther film excellent because it's a break from the status quo.  There's a black superhero leading his own show and he will be supported by a cast and script that will hopefully not try to whitewash all of the realism away.  

Quote

You know, you may be right... But, for me progressive thinking is when you cast, IDK, Denzel Washington or Will Smith in a role that can be played by IDK, Russel Crowe or George Clooney (just examples). In roles where the race isn't prerequisite. The last several years, at least in Hollywood movies, we see African-American actors and actresses playing more and more roles that are defined by their skin color. Basically less rap and slave movies for them...

And these are things to still push for.  Denzel and Will Smith have proven that black actors can carry successful blockbusters.  Yet Hollywood still won't do color blind casting where it's applicable.  A major problem is that when there are roles that aren't rap or slave movies, the fucking studios still cast white actors.  I mean, a white actor will be playing Michael Fucking Jackson.  I think there's a new Matt Damon movie where he's playing the lead in a film about the period of time when the great wall was built.   A tv show called Tyrant, set in a fictional Arabic country, delayed production to find a lead and all they ended up with was some untalented white guy.  

John Oliver actually had a piece about the incredible whitewashing that happens in Hollywood.  

 

[Mladen]

1 hour ago, Castel said:

What exactly counts as a "big fuss" here? Maybe we should be more concrete on that. 

I believe that it doesn't come natural for Hollywood to have, in this case, all-female cast and that movies like this are used as a flag-waver for any sort of criticism that may ensue. I am not certain that female Ghostbusters or this one actually changes anything other than give Ricky Gervais some new material to mock Hollywood's politics. Not sure it is a big fuss, just my opinion on the matter of these female reboots. As was said, this cast, this incredibly funny and talented cast didn't need a reboot. They could have done wonders with original material.

1 hour ago, Castel said:

Progressive is also putting a hundred million down on a movie with a majority African-American cast in the days when some people are claiming that black people (including the Denzel Washington you mention) don't sell overseas. 

I don't see why progressive moves should be limited to color-blind movies. Movies about slavery (there's been like....one rap movie I can think of off the top of my head) may seem played out  but this isn't that. It's a Marvel film about an established character that's about as old as my father. He has as much a right to be brought to life as anyone. 

If you want characters who aren't defined by their race or nationality (at least in current canon) War Machine and Falcon and Luke Cage are still there, right now in the Marvel universe. This particular character's circumstance invites discussions on the cast. That happens too.

That is certainly a valid claim and I would agree with it. 

Yes, but it is something that we at this point would need. African-American actor can't only be respected if he/she plays a slave or when you have a LGBTQ role, you either need some beatings and tragic end for it to be accepted by the Hollywood peers and critics (I am still angry that the masterpiece such as "Carol" was in many ways ignored because it was utterly-feminine, not-tragic end for its main couple)

And I think we need more cast discussions. I was once surprised to hear that "Grey's anatomy" is one of very rare TV shows that had color-blind casting back when it started. We really need more of this, but not to go totally opposite and make special snowflakes of those projects. 

30 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

But that's the thing.  HOllywood has such a bad record that this actually is a big deal.  There's a never ending list of films set in Africa with a predominantly white cast or with a story that focuses on white characters or with a white lead.  There's also a never ending list of superhero movies where the superhero is always white, even when they are aliens from another galaxy.  I mean, why the fuck is Superman/girl always fucking white?  The only black Asgardian is a gawd damn doorman.  So I find the Black Panther film excellent because it's a break from the status quo.  There's a black superhero leading his own show and he will be supported by a cast and script that will hopefully not try to whitewash all of the realism away.  

Yeah, it seems that somehow we have instead of going forward, we somehow went back. And that is why many will lead conversation regarding Black Panther and the race of the cast and not, probably absolutely amazing and stunning Wakandian (African) set and mythology that we are going to see. As for Heimlich, isn't he the guardian of the Asgard, not just the doorman? Yeah, when you see Jospeh Fiennes being cast as Michael Jackson, we actually need to over-celebrate the movies like "Ocean's 8" (which again, with that cast could have been outstanding movie with original material)

 

[Castel]

18 minutes ago, Risto said:

I believe that it doesn't come natural for Hollywood to have, in this case, all-female cast and that movies like this are used as a flag-waver for any sort of criticism that may ensue. I am not certain that female Ghostbusters or this one actually changes anything other than give Ricky Gervais some new material to mock Hollywood's politics. Not sure it is a big fuss, just my opinion on the matter of these female reboots. As was said, this cast, this incredibly funny and talented cast didn't need a reboot. They could have done wonders with original material.

I don't know what "natural" means.

See, this is part of my problem with the claims that "I'm for X form of diversity unless it's forced": is something forced because it's hugely contrived or is it forced because it's new? 

I don't think anyone in Hollywood made a $100 million dollar movie so they can have a loss they can point to when confronted by the internet.

The market is changing and we're in a time where gender and race flipped movies that don't go towards white males mostly are seen as more of a thing. It's another move to mutate an existing property they want to reuse. I don't mind it in principle anymore than I mind any other move.

 

As for original material: well, this is the new normal. The Ocean's movie everyone loved is a remake. Most everything is a remake or adaptation. Until people go back to watching original films it's odd to me that we pick the one or two gender/race flipped movies and make them the lightning rods of this discussion when the entire industry is not working on original work. 

Why shouldn't the list of male remakes and warmed over comic book shit be the targets of this discussion? Karl Urban is talented, why was he in Dredd? Why was Tom Cruise in the endless Mission Impossible sequels or the Jack Reacher and All You Need is KIll adaptations? Why are all the men in these reworked superhero films? 

 

All of them are incredibly talented and some of them probably have more derivative works than the entire list of recent gender-flipped movies combined, so maybe they should be the lightning rods for this discussion. 

Quote

That is certainly a valid claim and I would agree with it. 

Yes, but it is something that we at this point would need. African-American actor can't only be respected if he/she plays a slave or when you have a LGBTQ role, you either need some beatings and tragic end for it to be accepted by the Hollywood peers and critics (I am still angry that the masterpiece such as "Carol" was in many ways ignored because it was utterly-feminine, not-tragic end for its main couple)

And I think we need more cast discussions. I was once surprised to hear that "Grey's anatomy" is one of very rare TV shows that had color-blind casting back when it started. We really need more of this, but not to go totally opposite and make special snowflakes of those projects. 

Yeah, it seems that somehow we have instead of going forward, we somehow went back. And that is why many will lead conversation regarding Black Panther and the race of the cast and not, probably absolutely amazing and stunning Wakandian (African) set and mythology that we are going to see. As for Heimlich, isn't he the guardian of the Asgard, not just the doorman? Yeah, when you see Jospeh Fiennes being cast as Michael Jackson, we actually need to over-celebrate the movies like "Ocean's 8" (which again, with that cast could have been outstanding movie with original material)

 

 

I just disagree man. And this is why I said this is the risk of colorblindness:

You want to dispense with one of the oldest black heroes because they're "not needed", in the search for some standard of colorblindness. 

I just completely reject the implication that Black Panther is hostile to casting other roles without turning them into black roles (as in slavery and so on). War Machine, Luke Cage, Perry White, Johnny Storm and Falcon are not "black roles". And this is just superhero films. 

It seems to me that you're overselling the mutually exclusive nature of movies like BP, which will end up with a majority black cast, and movies with roles that don't have a racial requirement. 

 

Plenty of black actors play non-slavery roles. Laurence Fishburne just came from like for years of TV where he didn't play a "black role" on Hannibal and CSI..Anthony Mackie was in The Hurt Locker even before his run of Marvel films. Don Cheadle does Crash but still does House of Lies (which does touch on his blackness in corporate America but it's nowhere near a defining feature) and The Guard. The cast of Black Panther have other non-black roles (Lupita Nyong'o was in Star Wars, Danai Gurira was on Walking Dead as Michonne for years and so on).

 

And, frankly, I don't see why black roles are a problem.Michael B. Jordan played a "black role" in The Wire and, arguably in Friday Night Lights (you can fiddle around and argue about class instead). So what? It was rewarding art that spoke to certain social conditions. He still found time to be in other stuff. Orange is the New Black wouldn't be half the show it is if it pretended to be colorblind

 

Black Panther isn't a colorblind film and, honestly, it shouldn't be. It is also one movie in Marvel's growing stable and in an industry that puts out 300 movies a year. There's a space for a film like Black Panther and it's only a good thing to me that people are getting these chances and someone is willing to put their money where their mouth is to defy the stereotype that "black movies" don't sell. You see it as pidgeon-holing, I see the opposite. I see Marvel saying "you like Marvel movies, here's one and we trust that you'll see a Marvel movie first and not a "black film""

 

As I said above, movies like this haven't pidgeon-holed black actors (there aren't that many of them), they just give them opportunities and profile-like Blade with Wesley Snipes. There's much to gain and little to lose from them, and I don't really see the issue. It's really weird to me to weigh the profile being given to racial issues as being so galling as to affect all the actual tangible things being done for this film.

[Mladen]

1 hour ago, Castel said:

I don't know what "natural" means.

Normal, usual... I committed the worst crime of speaking in another language. I was writing in English and thinking in Serbian.

I am not for complete color-blindness. We need movies about slavery, just like we need LGBT movies, movies about women's right etc. Color-blindness isn't working always (just like passing the Bechdel test doesn't mean a show or movie don't have problematic view on women) and OITNB is excellent example. However, it should be enforced when we can and it should not be the news. Is skin color so important for James Bond? Or for some random superhero? Could have *any random superhero* been equally great with some black actor? Of course. Different actor brings different things. That said, sometimes you can't easily swap. For example, it would be difficult to imagine IDK, Halle Berry or Kerry Washington playing Galadriel instead of Cate Blanchett. And that is not because of Blanchett's skin color, but because she truly captures serenity, demeanor and grace of Galadriel. Heck, most white actress couldn't have done that. That said, not everything is a racism. Casting RDJ for Tony Stark isn't racist because well, RDJ is born for that role. And I understand the issues that come with this. There will always be accusations for this or that regardless of how valid or invalid they are.

But Hollywood should first stop with whitewashing and then tackle the color-blind casting. Same goes with equal pay for actress. It is not about IDK, Gwyneth Paltrow and RDJ earning the same money, it is about making a system that takes variety of things into consideration before writing that fat check. Then, we have to treat movies with women at the center not as some sort of a project or exercise in diversification, but the actual movies that can stand on their own. 

[-Ghost-]

4 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 A tv show called Tyrant, set in a fictional Arabic country, delayed production to find a lead and all they ended up with was some untalented white guy.

 

 

I still can't understand this decision. They already had a guy that would have been perfect for the role in Fares Fares.

 

I enjoyed the Oceans movies, so I'm definitely interested in hearing more about this. Love Sandra Bullock and Anne Hathaway. I wonder who the 8 person will be. It would be awesome if they could work Julia Roberts into it.

[Jaxom 1974]

11 hours ago, Corvinus said:

Julia Roberts played Danny Ocean's wife (or ex-wife) Tess. If they don't want this to be a reboot, but a spinoff, or sequel of sorts, they should bring her back, and form the team around her, since the character already has the name.

Something is obviously wrong with me.  Hearing about this, I was immediately intrigued because I loved the Ocean movies. But reading the castings, I was actually distracted by it not having Julia Robert's involved...all the rest being discussed in this thread never occurred to me. 

[Rhom]

On August 12, 2016 at 0:01 AM, Dr. Pepper said:

This is reasonable and something I agree with.  I don't know why you or Mr. Manhole didn't simply present it this way to start instead of choosing on focusing your commentary on not wanting women entering this previously male-held space. 

Like you, I'm sick of the remake/spinoff/sequel/prequel industry and due to the CW, I'm also sick of the superhero genre.  However, since Hollywood is insistent on giving us such tired crap, I'm glad to see that they are providing women and people of color opportunity to participate.  I hope the women cast in this spinoff are provided good material, at least comparable to what the nearly all male cast received with the Ocean's Eleven remake.  

I'd like to remind everyone that Mad Max Fury Road had a women centered script and it was the greatest film of the franchise and one of the best film's of this decade.  This isn't to suggest that Ocean's 8 will be anywhere in the same realm as Fury Road, but to point out that women in traditionally male spaces and even when they are part of the never ending sequel gimmick can be a great success when provided quality material. 

And the point you are missing here is that Fury Road was fantastic with a female led cast because it happened organically.  It didn't feel like some Hollywood hack sat in a board room and said "Hey guys... Know what would be neat???"  

Charlize Theron's character was great because it really didn't matter if she were a man or woman.  That didn't define her character.  It was just a strong role and she rocked it.

To sit here and call well reasoned posters like ME names is petty.

[Rhom]

3 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Something is obviously wrong with me.  Hearing about this, I was immediately intrigued because I loved the Ocean movies. But reading the castings, I was actually distracted by it not having Julia Robert's involved...all the rest being discussed in this thread never occurred to me. 

Agreed.  Felt it should have Julia to be a proper spinoff.  Or at least someone who actually appeared in the three prior...

Almost feels like this will be like that season of the Dukes of Hazard where their suspiciously similarly looking cousins came in to drive the General Lee.

"This is Danny's half sister he didn't know he had... But she naturally still has the same roguish charm as her estranged brother."

[Dr. Pepper]

12 hours ago, Rhom said:

And the point you are missing here is that Fury Road was fantastic with a female led cast because it happened organically.  It didn't feel like some Hollywood hack sat in a board room and said "Hey guys... Know what would be neat???"  

Charlize Theron's character was great because it really didn't matter if she were a man or woman.  That didn't define her character.  It was just a strong role and she rocked it.

To sit here and call well reasoned posters like ME names is petty.

And the point you're missing is that Fury Road was successful and probably helped open the door for these other female centered remakes, spinoffs and sequels.  

Also, no one was called names.  It was pointed out that their arguments were not at all well reasoned, but actually sexist.  

12 hours ago, Rhom said:

Agreed.  Felt it should have Julia to be a proper spinoff.  Or at least someone who actually appeared in the three prior...

Almost feels like this will be like that season of the Dukes of Hazard where their suspiciously similarly looking cousins came in to drive the General Lee.

"This is Danny's half sister he didn't know he had... But she naturally still has the same roguish charm as her estranged brother."

This is really quite ridiculous.  We have no idea what the script will be or whether Julia Roberts even wanted to be part of the show 15 years later.  Aside from casting choices, the one thing we do know is that it's likely there will be cameos from the first remake.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

36 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Also, no one was called names.  It was pointed out that their arguments were not at all well reasoned, but actually sexist.  

 I understand your and Castel's points about this being an equal opportunity deal, but if it's just another way to repackage crap I don't find it to be any more defensible than any other form of repackaged crap. I think the strongest point that was made was that I prejudged this. It's entirely possible that this will be a good film and I shouldn't condemn it based solely on the fact that it is another reboot.

[polishgenius]

I wouldn't mind Julia Roberts being involved somehow, but having her be one of the 8 would require some serious contrivance. She isn't a thief, she doesn't like thievery. And even if you did manage a plausible way without changing her entire character you'd have to further contrive to not have Danny in it.

So I'm alright that she's not there.

 

The real concern is whether they can recreate the chemistry and snap between the characters. If that falls flat the whole movie will. They've got the cast, but I dunno if they've got the director.

[Mladen]

14 hours ago, Rhom said:

Charlize Theron's character was great because it really didn't matter if she were a man or woman.  That didn't define her character.  It was just a strong role and she rocked it.

The problem with female films these past years is not that the gender doesn't define the character. This androgyny in some roles is well accepted. The problem occurs when we have truly feminine roles. You know, those roles that white straight male Hollywood peers can't easily understand or sympathize with. Last year many talked that Hollywood accepted "Room" and "Brooklyn" even though they were female-centered movies. But the thing is that the topic of these two movies is above the gender. Parenthood and depression, falling in love and starting a life somewhere else are themes that most people can and will understand. But, when you have something undoubtedly feminine, something that is void of all masculine influence, that is when we have problems. "Carol" last year was female film through and through. It was a happy-ending lesbian love affair. The entire movie was meticulous, artistically beautiful and even though critics adored it, the mainstream Hollywood and AMPAS ignored it when it comes to awards and general recognition.

So, I believe that the next thing Hollywood needs to do is to accept truly feminine movies, those that can't be so easily swapped with opposite gender.

[Castel]

20 hours ago, Rhom said:

And the point you are missing here is that Fury Road was fantastic with a female led cast because it happened organically.  It didn't feel like some Hollywood hack sat in a board room and said "Hey guys... Know what would be neat???"  

 

You think the reboots and remakes and adaptations we get don't come from someone sitting around in a boardroom? 

 

7 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

And the point you're missing is that Fury Road was successful and probably helped open the door for these other female centered remakes, spinoffs and sequels.  

 

And, y'know, we've actually seen Fury Road.

Of course, it's not like a more extreme version of the "you're pushing women/whatever" didn't get thrown at Fury Road and other films like TFA.

 

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Castel said:

You think the reboots and remakes and adaptations we get don't come from someone sitting around in a boardroom? 

 But that film clearly didn't. That was George Miller's baby and vision. Granted he has to get the green light from a studio, but I don't believe that the movie was studio driven. 

[Castel]

40 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 But that film clearly didn't. That was George Miller's baby and vision. Granted he has to get the green light from a studio, but I don't believe that the movie was studio driven. 

Sure. Most movies good or bad at this sort of scale are studio done though. The boardroom issue seems especially true once you start talking about sequels and rewarmings. George Miller may have fucked off to the middle of the Australian wilderness but if your standard is that soulless Hollywood execs didn't sit around calculating things like demographic appeal for movies north of $50 mil...you're setting a high bar for yourself. 

They're hacks mainly when you notice imo. 

 

 

[Guess who's back]

Here we go again lmao. Looks like Hollywood really doesn't believe in women lead new blockbuster franchise.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

On 8/13/2016 at 9:13 PM, Castel said:

Sure. Most movies good or bad at this sort of scale are studio done though. The boardroom issue seems especially true once you start talking about sequels and rewarmings. George Miller may have fucked off to the middle of the Australian wilderness but if your standard is that soulless Hollywood execs didn't sit around calculating things like demographic appeal for movies north of $50 mil...you're setting a high bar for yourself. 

They're hacks mainly when you notice imo. 

Sure, but the film is question (Fury Road) was made by one of a handful of directors that really doesn't have to bow to studio pressure, so I don't think it falls into that category.

I think it's unfortunate that these boardroom studio folks seem to think that they know more about film than the folks who actually make them. I understand that they are usually just trying to protect their investment and that they are more interested in profit than they are in making a good film, but I think oftentimes they are their own worst enemies.

[Mladen]

Trailer has arrived