As a studio, Sony and Columbia have always wanted another Ghostbusters. The success of the franchise still lasts thirty years after the film’s original release and it’s a staple part of mainstream pop culture, but Sony haven’t been able to replicate its success. Columbia tried it in 2001 with Ivan Reitman’s Evolution, and the initial discussions for Adam Sandler’s adaptation of short film Pixels were for it to be Sony’s new Ghostbusters: a franchise with sequels, cartoon spin-offs and hot-selling merchandise. When Timothy Dowling was brought in to re-write Tim Herlihy’s script, he was told to make it “more like Ghostbusters“. Sadly neither film made a lot of money and Pixels in particular was a critical and box office disaster, so after nearly 14 years in development and false starts it was unsurprising that studio were willing to green light a Ghostbusters reboot even if it was the least creative thing to do.
In the weeks and months that followed and as Ghostbusters headed into production, we heard more and more about how Paul Feig and writer Katie Dippold were creating a movie with “fun nods” to the original. It was revealed that original cast members Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts and Sigourney Weaver were to have cameo appearances in the film. They released images of the new jumpsuits and the new Ecto-1, both looking the same as their original designs with a slightly different sheen. Feig spoke openly about using Ray Parker Jr.’s classic Ghostbusters theme, rumours of Slimer making an appearance hit the news streams, and a leaked toy image teased an alternate version of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.
Which goes against Feig’s initial reason for taking on the project. Going back to his AlloCine quote he said, “I thought I’d rather do it as a reboot, so I wasn’t tied to the old movies.” If you didn’t want to be tied to the original film, why are you doing so much to remind us of it? Why have so many nods and references? Why distract us from your new adventure by constantly talking about the old? When Correnberg directed The Fly he wasn’t frenetically pointing to the 1958 original, he made his own movie. That’s the whole point of remaking something.
And that brings us to yesterday’s trailer. A trailer so steeped in references and nods to the original movie you have to wonder why they even bothered. It opens up by reminding us of what happened 30 years ago (while incorrectly pointing out that four scientists saved the world when Winston wasn’t a scientist) with a piano version of Parker Jr.’s theme as well as showing us shots of the original firehouse they used as Ghostbusters HQ. We then see our new heroes encounter a ghost in a library-type setting, which leads them to start their own business. We see the black character – not a scientist but a local New Yorker – join the team and introduce a battered car they’ll use as their vehicle. We see Slimer, we see a billboard for Twinkies, we heard a new version of theme tune.
What we saw was fan service.
“Fan service” has become the bane of Hollywood reboots. It’s as if writers and filmmakers nowadays feel like they have to reference the movie they’re rebooting as a knowing nod to the audience because ‘that’s what they want to see’. But if we wanted to see the original movie, we’d watch it on Blu-Ray from the comfort of our own home. As much as I praised Rise of the Planet of the Apes earlier, it too is plagued by nods and references to the original movie and those are its weaker moments. I always point to the 2010 remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street as a benchmark for how not to reboot a franchise as it spends more time making sly references or updating classic scenes as a wink and nudge to the audience than developing its own plot and characters. So lost in its references is the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street that it starts using lines from other movies from the series out of context solely to appease fans watching it. You can read more about my thoughts on that here.
Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters trailer has the same issue. Seemingly 60% of it is a re-tread of the original movie only with a modern-day twist and no creativity. Did we need another library ghost? Did we need to see Slimer in the trailer? The new Ecto-1 is virtually the same as the original, but different enough that it masquerades as new. The same with the jump suits. Can you give me a solid reason as to why they have reflective stripes around their chests other than that they’re there to separate them from the original designs? Furthermore – is it a reboot or is it a sequel? The opening 20 seconds of the trailer suggests it’s a sequel while the remaining runtime acts like it’s an original story. It’s almost as if the movie doesn’t know what it wants to be.
And that’s not even going into the film making references to The Exorcist. Never mind the fact that several thousand other movies have made the exact same joke, why are you doing it in a Ghostbusters movie? Because we’ve seen The Exorcist and that has possession in it too? Is that what it’s come to?
Now, the bigger question on hand however, is are these references to the original a Paul Feig decision or a studio demanded one? For starters, you’ve got to question why the trailer has taken so long to come out. Feig announced it would be released before the end of 2015, then the end of February, and it finally arrived at the start of March. It was released around four months before the film hits cinemas. In an age where we often get trailers for films that are still in production, that screams studio interference. The last time we saw these sorts of delays was Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four, and I don’t think I need to go over what happened there. Could it be that Feig wanted to make a straight remake with no references to the original movie like he said in his AlloCine quote and then Sony demanded that he did? It’s not an unreasonable suggestion. Based on the quotes he’s given about Ghostbusters I get the feeling that Feig just wanted to make another Bridesmaids movie but couldn’t get one greenlit because Hollywood has this bizarre avoidance of putting female actors in big budget leading comedy roles, and so he piggybacked on a popular 80s franchise as a way to get “Bridesmaids 2” on the production board.
Whatever the case, Paul Feig’s reboot of Ghostbusters is a classic example of the cynical Hollywood cash-grab system. The movie exists because Sony want to make a few bucks off the back of the Ghostbusters license. They weren’t interested in making a new movie for new fans, and neither does Paul Feig by the looks of it. The Internet will have you believe that straight white males (such as myself) are against this movie because it features an all-female cast and our straight white male privilege is offended by that, but that’s not the case. Are there people who hate the movie for that reason? Of course there is. But those people also hated Star Wars: The Force Awakens for the same reasons. They may be vocal in their displeasure, but their complaints are misguided and frankly stupid.
But their idiocy is clouding over the bigger issue at hand: the Ghostbusters reboot trailer highlights everything wrong with the remake mentality. It exists solely to make money and isn’t done for love or reverence of the source material. Paul Feig didn’t want to put his new spin on the 1984 comedy classic, he just wanted to make another Bridesmaids movie and he’s using the Ghostbusters franchise to give him a lot of money to do so. It’s as bad and as pointless as the Point Break remake, but because it has an all-female cast it’s seemingly been given a free pass.
Luke Owen is the Deputy Editor of Flickering Myth and the co-host of The Flickering Myth Podcast. You can follow him on Twitter @ThisisLukeOwen.
. url=”.” . width=”100%” height=”150″ iframe=”true” /]
