'Ghostbusters: Aftermath' trailer is already a culture war proxy

Somehow the Ghostbusters franchise has evolved from a beloved 1980s comedy touchstone to the center of the culture wars. If you liked or didn't like 2016's all-female reboot that's supposed to suggest something about your character or your politics.

And in that same vein, your impressions of the latest iteration, Jason Reitman's 2020 edition, that's supposed to be some sort of tell, too.

I am an enormous Ghostbusters fan (yes, I even like the second one). It was a childhood favorite or mine and some of the misogyny aside, the original still holds up as one of the best comedy movies of all time and certainly one of my all-time favorites.

My position has always been that there is no need for new Ghostbusters movies. Perhaps a third film could have worked in the 90s when all the original actors were still with us but in fighting shape, but they and America moved on.

When the 2016 film dropped I was sort of mixed on it but I saw that it value, especially for young women and girls who had four heroes to root for in one of the more iconic movie franchises of the last several decades. I think the movie could have and should have served them better, but I didn't think it was this debacle, just a little forgettable.

Perhaps unfairly, this new version has been getting hyped up as some sort of attempt to course correct. It appears to have been co-opted by a lot of toxic people for the wrong reasons (with a presumption that men were taking the franchise 'back'). And then there are the 2016 movie's defenders, who feel like this take is a slap in the face. And now that the Stranger Things-esque first official trailer has dropped its getting hit on all sides from fans and people who think it looks derivative and unfunny.

Basically, not unlike Star Wars, I think this is a series that has come to mean way too much beyond the actual films themselves, and there will be no pleasing anyone. There are the people who think the original is overrated, commercial junk. I've even heard my liberal friends knock it as some sort of pro-business, anti environmental screed. I am sure this new one will inspire its fair share of haters. And the loser will inevitably be the Ghostbusters IPO which will now not so much be fondly remembered for being fun, but more remembered for being shockingly divisive.

How could making a movie starring four women in roles previously played by men be so controversial? Honestly, that should have been a sign that Trump would win.

All I can say is I am a fan. I love that first film so much that I'd be open to anything that could rekindle its special mix of spectacle and laughs. I am doubtful. But I also acknowledge that this is one of Sony's most valuable, recognizable properties and so it behooves them to make more.

I am going to ultimately judge Ghostbusters: Aftermath on its own terms. It's impossible not to make comparisons to earlier editions though. For instance the production values seem very high, higher than the last installment. But it also seems to be going for a much more serious and reverent tone, which I am not entirely sure is a good thing. I like the deliberate attempt to link it to the universe from the first films (although I would have liked to have seen a familiar face -- perhaps Sigourney Weaver's Dana Barrett). I actually like the choice to make the protagonists kids -- and of different genders. It'll be impossible to brand this films as either only for men or for women.

That being said -- the Stranger Things aesthetic is getting a little played out for me. It reached its peak with It: Chapter One and now I feel like I am not sure what more can be done with it. It doesn't help that the same young actor  -- Finn Wolfhard -- is appearing in all of these properties. He's a fine, funny young actor, but certainly there could have been a new fresher face to feature here.

Also, as welcoming as the presence of Paul Rudd is, the trailer doesn't really have any legit laughs in it -- it's seemingly almost more of a fantasy adventure, which is a choice I guess. But I always loved these movies for their humor, not their mysticism. If I wanted to be transported like that I'd probably opt for an Indiana Jones film. To me, Ghostbusters was about the one liners and the attitude played off of the chaos, which is a tone that I thought the 2016 version mostly got right.

Still, as always I will wait for the reviews and wince while people debate whether their childhood managed to be ruined for a second time all over again.