I'm
not a fan of reboots or remakes. It doesn't seem like that long ago
when some of these movies were originally made, and then they got the
remake treatment. Movies like Footloose, Total Recall and the retooling
of the Star Trek franchise come to mind. Count me as somebody who wasn't a fan of any
of these. I prefer the originals. Yeah, I sound like one of those "get
off my lawn" types.
The
thing about franchises is they have fanbases. The way those franchises
were done in the first place won those fans over. This created the
expectations of those fans. So, if you get too cute with things, you
risk the wrath of the fans. This seems to be happening a lot in the
science fiction genre. Things like Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who and
Ghostbusters are mired in heated discussions that at times evoke heated political and social debates.
When
Ghostbusters 2016 was announced, I was sort of curious. When I heard it
would be an all female cast and basically a reboot, I just casually
said, "no thank you," and moved on with my life. Of course, the discussions continued between the Ghostbusters fan base and the new stars of this movie,
and it got heated. People were calling each other names, and at times
you started hearing about political affiliations and political correctness.
With
the announcement that there will be a sequel to
Ghostbusters 2, I finally sat down to watched Ghostbusters 2016. I know
I'm late to the party, but considering the debate that started raging again
about the most recent movie, I wanted to enter the discussion with my
own opinion. I had one thought on my mind as I clicked play. Was this
movie really so bad? My answer after watching it is no. It was actually
pretty good and stuck to the established Ghostbusters formula.
A
thought crosses my mind. They did have some of the stars from the
original movies in the most recent movie. However, they did not reprise
their iconic roles. Therefore, you didn't get what might have made this a
little bit more palatable to the die hard fans. You didn't get the
stars of the original passing the baton over to the new stars. Or, maybe
some of them could have shared the stage with them in some capacity.
Maybe they could have done more movies together after this. I think it's fair to
ask, had they done it that way, would this movie have performed better
at the box office?
I'm
not going to get into the comments that were thrown back and forth
between the supporters and the haters. It's all subjective. Ghostbusters
2016 sticks to the formula. I mean, you can easily put the four
original Ghostbusters in the roles of the four new characters. With just
a little bit of tweaking of the dialogue, you would have your typical
Ghostbusters movie. The story takes place in New York. The bad guy
opens a portal from the netherworld to the real world to cause mayhem.
The Ghostbusters have to figure out how to save the day.
I
know one criticism I read was that all four women were trying to be the funny
one. What movie were you watching? That's not what I saw at all. Kristen
Wiig, for instance, wasn't trying to be the funny one. She did a great
job in her role and pretty much played it straight. Melissa McCarthy was
a little funny, and more there for the physical stuff as she is want to
do. Leslie Jones really did a good job as the everyday woman who became
a Ghostbuster. Attacking her for her skin color is petty and so
unworthy of even me commenting on it any further. She deserved better
than that.
If
there is a weak link in the four, it's Kate McKinnon. I admit I'm not a
fan of her on Saturday Night Live, nor the political bent in her humor
on that show, but I can separate that from the movie. Saturday Night
Live has nothing to do with it, even though one of the things I like
about that show, Jones, is in this movie too. My problem with Kate is
she could dial it down a little bit. A little Jim Carreyish, if you ask
me. She does have a Geena Davis quality to her that I like, but she was
here to be the funny one. I liked her toast to the other girls at the
end of movie. Maybe her best scene.
Critics
were merciless, leading movie supporters to bring up the possibility
that the hate was based solely on the fact that the four stars were
women. Is that the case? Maybe. I personally would have a problem if
women were being cast just for the sake that we have to have women in
these roles as some sort of message. However, it wasn't like there were
just four women on the screen. They acted and they did their parts well
enough.
As
I watched this movie, I looked for any signs of some sort of agenda, as
has been suggested by the film's detractors. I've seen some really
ridiculous criticisms by people like Milo Yiannopoulos and others. They
suggested it was about "women good, men bad." They claimed that all of the men were stupid
and needed the women to save them and other such nonsense. I didn't
notice that, subtly or more obviously. All I noticed were actors
playing their roles. I didn't even think about who the actors were,
because I was enjoying the story they were trying to tell. I know
Hollywood loves messages, but not every movie is filled with some agenda
driven message.
I
would say this was the third best movie in the franchise, but that's
not a knock against it. The first two movies were just that good, in my
opinion. This may not be the best movie ever, but it held my attention
from start to finish. That's all you can ask from any movie such as
this one. If you're entertained and get a few laughs out of it, it did its
job. I think the ladies were hoping it would do well enough that there
would be sequels. While I still haven't seen the evidence that they
actually lost more money than they spent making this movie, it wasn't a
blockbuster. It did not warrant a sequel.
Then,
we got the announcement of the new movie in the pipeline that will be a
Part 3. Understandably, the makers of Ghostbusters 2016 weren't happy.
They felt assaulted by the critics. Then, we started reading comments
about how doing a sequel to the other Ghostbusters
movies is like rewarding the fans for their behavior. That's the type of comment that we're seeing in our political
discussions these days, and this is supposed to be entertainment. I wish
PC, politics and all that stuff could be separated from entertainment,
but that's not the world we live in now.
Illustrating
that point, Jones made the comment that it was like a Donald Trump type
of thing making a sequel to Part 2 instead of allowing the ladies to
reprise their roles. I really wish she hadn't said that, but as I
understand she was attacked verbally on social media when this movie was
released. I get it. I wouldn't deny her her right to an opinion.
Personally, as she played the niece of Ernie Hudson's character, I'd
love to see her be the niece of Winston in the next movie. It probably
won't happen.
I
know people have strong opinions. I too want to see a continuation of
the original two movies. I can't help but feel bad for the ladies
though. The baton may be passed in the next movie, but perhaps the
ladies should have been afforded that opportunity in the 2016 movie. And
if they had, would the public outcry over their movie been as bad?
Would they have made a little bit more money and be talking about their
own sequel this time?
There's
just one thing I would ask anybody who is objective. And maybe this
goes for people who skipped out on Ghostbusters 2016 when it came out.
Disassociate this movie from the first two movies and the controversy
behind the scenes. Judge the ladies on their merits in this movie and
what it has to offer. I think you'll find that while it may not be the
best movie ever made, it wasn't so terrible either. It maybe was a
victim of the times that we're living in these days. Not everything is
some crusade. Sometimes a movie is just that, a movie,
