Personally, I am pretty jazzed about the news, while my friend and "Too Fat for Skinny Jeans" blogger Brian Wezowicz is decidedly not.
I invited him to join me for a polite debate on the merits of this upcoming movie, which as of yet is untitled, doesn't have an official release date and hasn't even been shot yet -- but has still managed to spark a huge reaction all over social media.
We'll have to reconvene once this highly anticipated movie finally sees the light of day, but in the meantime please enjoy as we geek out in the extreme about this project...
Brian
Hey Adam, I'm sure you've seen the news that is currently breaking the internet (and my childhood) this week. The all-female Ghostbusters reboot has officially been cast. Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon have reportedly been hired to fill the tan suits and proton packs made famous by Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson. This news has caused a split between fans and non-fans alike. I know you're a huge Ghostbusters (especially Bill Murray) fan, so I want to see where you land on this news. I should point out that Ghostbusters is my favorite movie of all-time, and I'm on record voicing my displeasure. Before I go off on what I dislike about this, I'd love to get your take.
Adam
Ghostbusters definitely ranks among my favorite films of all time as well. I binge watched the cartoon, owned the toys and have attended both of its recent re-releases in theaters. I have cringed over the years when I heard about Dan Aykroyd's efforts to reunite the original cast for one more go-round. There didn't seem to be any need to improve upon perfection other than to fleece filmgoers who were understandably nostalgic about the first two films. When I first heard about Paul Feig's desire to reboot the franchise with women I originally thought it was unnecessary but still a more original and appealing idea than bringing the old cast out of mothballs or doing some kind of frat boy version (as was often rumored) starring the likes of Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill.
 |
| Kate McKinnon |
Brian
I agree that it was inevitable. There's too much money left to milk out of this cow for Sony to shelve it for good. I think my biggest issue with this remake is that it's completely unnecessary. I consider the original Ghostbusters film to be a perfect movie. There isn't a wasted frame in it. The cast was incredible, the jokes were hilarious, and the special effects mostly hold up (which is rare for a movie that's 30 years old). The thing I loved most about it is that it's a self-contained story. I didn't feel a need for anything else after Winston yells "I love this town!", and the credits roll. I was completely satisfied. I think this is why I disliked the sequel for so long. It felt forced and didn't really add anything to the Ghostbusters canon. I've grown to appreciate it slightly over the years, but it's not a movie that I love revisiting. I know we've disagreed on its quality before, with you having a deeper appreciation for it.
That's the thing that chaps my ass so much about this remake. I don't need to see the Ghostbusters origin story another time. Unlike The Amazing Spider-Man (where we both felt it was a more satisfying origin story), I'm not staying awake at night hoping they finally get it right.
My hatred (that's probably too harsh a word for a movie that doesn't even have a script) for this film has nothing to do with the cast. In fact, I like everyone in the cast (although my love for Melissa McCarthy is quickly falling as she approaches the Adam Sandler zone). I really like that they didn't go the obvious route, instead casting two relative unknowns in the SNL duo. I think my biggest issue is that it's happening too soon. This isn't Peter Jackson remaking King Kong (which I loved). Enough time has passed for it to be worthy of a remake. This movie is strictly about one thing - cash. There's no other way to spin it other than Sony has a valuable property that it wants to take to the bank.
All this reboot/remake talk has me thinking. Do you think there should be a time limit to them? What should be the proper grace period before a film is allowed to be rebooted? I think 30 years is too short, especially if the original movie is still amazing. I think a movie should have at least a 50 year shelf life before Hollywood is allowed to restart from scratch. I could be convinced otherwise.
Adam
I don't know that I agree with you that it's too soon. It's been 25 years since the last Ghostbusters film (and yes I am an ardent defender of the inferior but still very fun Ghostbusters II). I think even the casual fan doesn't revisit these films as much as the two of us have. And I'm sad to say most of my co-workers who are just a few years younger than me confessed to either having never seen the original film or having only seen it once years ago. The first movie is perfect and it is timeless and I would have a problem with the new film if it completely denied its existence or made no nod to the original cast of characters -- in fact I'm hoping that this movie is more of a direct sequel which somehow incorporates the iconography of the original films. I feel like the film's pedigree alone makes it worth giving a chance. If the reviews are bad or if the trailer looks terrible I will be the first to skip it. But -- for instance -- there is virtually no film (save for the new Star Wars and Bond movie) I am more excited about than Mad Max: Fury Road -- I love the original movies, don't think there is much more needed to say in terms of the subject matter, but the reboot looks so good I can't resist it.
 |
| Melissa McCarthy |
That said, they are already talking about rebooting Spider-Man and Batman again, clearly that's insane.
Brian
I hear your point that a younger generation doesn't hold this film up to the same light as the two of us (if they've even seen it at all!). I know that 25 years seems like an eternity to most people. Hell, 25 minutes is probably too long for today's generation. But for me, I can't get past the idea that it's a reboot. I seem to remember reading somewhere that this movie will be an origin story and not a direct sequel. I think I would be more on board with a passing of the baton to a different crew of Busters, and if that's the case, then maybe my mind will be changed. For now, I am firmly in the "not gonna see it" camp.
I believe the new Mad Max is more of a continuation than a reboot if I'm not mistaken. That's a series that I've missed entirely. I just saw the first Mad Max movie a few weeks ago and absolutely loved it. I need to continue with the rest of them before the new movie comes out. I think Fury Road benefits in having the original director/creative force behind it.
I guess I'll have to wait to pass final judgement until I know what type of movie Ghostbusters 3.0 will be. I agree that they can add their own flavor to the series, and if it's more of a sequel that acknowledges the previous films then I'd be more inclined to see it. For the time being, and until I read otherwise, I've got my cranky pants on and they're not coming off.
But you did get me to let my guard down a little bit!
BTW, I can't wait to get into another exchange once the Indiana Jones news becomes official.
Adam
I'm glad you're keeping an open mind and to my earlier point, whether it's a reboot or a sequel, I think this is the best product we could have hoped for at this point and I'm all for seeing a big budget comedy being centered around women.
 |
| Leslie Jones |
I'll also say that yes my hope is also that this will be more of a "pass the baton" project than a total "wipe the slate clean" enterprise. And while I'm not expecting it to surpass the 1984 and 1989 films in my esteem, I will follow what clues we get about the production and hopefully they'll come up with something appropriately reverent while totally original as well. Sadly, this won't be the first or the last franchise that gets reconfigured by Hollywood. The industry is deathly afraid of starting something new and they know that there is so much brand recognition with this series that it's almost a guaranteed moneymaker.
Generally, I am not in the business of boycotting movies on principle. That said, I never saw and will never see Johnny Depp's version of Willy Wonka almost specifically because its director, Tim Burton, took shots at the perfect Gene Wilder original. I don't expect Paul Feig thinks he's going to top the original film and hoping he's looking to make more of an homage.
But we'll see. Either way thanks for debating with me. And yes let's stay tuned to the news on Indy.
No comments:
Post a Comment