Jump to content
  • entries
    49
  • comments
    168
  • views
    27,036

Rebootbusters

Hordaki

558 views

Since you guys seem to like debating the new Ghostbusters movie and the neccesity of reboots, I guess I'll throw in my two cents. Just a forewarning, I've never seen a Ghostbusters movie or any of Melissa McCarthy's work, so this is more on the topic of reboots and remakes as a whole.

 

The fact is, hardly any movies actually need a reboot and are usually just to cash in on nostalgia. But that doesn't mean all reboots are bad. I liked Disney's new Cinderella movie even though nobody was asking for it. But Cinderella at least tried to do some new things and update the story for a modern audience. Another example is The Amazing Spider-Man, which while retreading a lot of material from the Sam Raimi movies and adding in an unnecessary subplot about Peter's parents as spies, had one of the best romances I've ever seen in a superhero movie. There will always be bad reboots, but as long as they add new things to the source material and try to do their own thing, I don't think they can be written off so easily.

 

I get why fans get upset over reboots, the fact is Hollywood will keep making them until people stop going to see them, and the originals still exist and are just as good as you remember. I think that each reboot should be judged on it's own merits and not just how it compares to the original. As for Ghostbusters, I have no idea how it's going to be, but I'll give it a chance.



8 Comments


Recommended Comments

Well, when your trailer gets basic info wrong it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. For starters, only ONE of the original ghostbusters was a scientist, not four. As well as 1984 being more than 30 years ago. So yeah when get that basic of information wrong, don't be surprised when people don't get excited.

  • Upvote 6

Share this comment


Link to comment

Well, when your trailer gets basic info wrong it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. For starters, only ONE of the original ghostbusters was a scientist, not four. As well as 1984 being more than 30 years ago. So yeah when get that basic of information wrong, don't be surprised when people don't get excited.

 

I'd blame that on the marketing team, assuming that they were aiming the trailer at the more casual fans who wouldn't know how many of the Ghostbusters were actually scientists. And I guess 30 is a nicer number than 32? Either way, I feel like that part of the trailer is just gonna confuse people into thinking it's a sequel (maybe that's their plan). 

Share this comment


Link to comment

I think the movie looks like it could be decent. Of course, it could also be mediocre. Unlike you I have seen Ghostbusters and part of Ghostbusters 2, but like you I've never really seen the work of this director or these actors.

 

One big issue I have with a lot of the criticisms I've seen is the repeated claims I see that it's "unnecessary". I've never seen a movie that was "necessary", be it a reboot, a sequel, or an original film. And what is there to lose by trying to reboot a series like Ghostbusters that was basically dead anyway? Worst case scenario, the reboot is terrible, fans collectively choose to ignore its existence, the studio loses money, and nobody attempts to reboot the series again. Arguably, that's a win for people who never wanted it rebooted in the first place. And it's not like the Ghostbusters series was somehow pure or untainted anyway. It's had a sequel and animated series that were both generally regarded as mediocre cash-ins.

 

I'm also bothered by the frankly uncomfortable amount of sexist rhetoric I've seen regarding the Ghostbusters reboot. I'm not saying that everyone opposed to the movie is sexist, or even that most people are, but in a discussion about the movie on the Brickset forums I actually encountered people claiming that the movie was part of an evil feminist conspiracy, and that the "laws of comedy" (their words) made the things men did in the original movie automatically cooler and funnier than if women did them. Seriously. Eww.

 

Overall, my standing on the new movie is that it could be good, and it could be bad, but even if it's total garbage it doesn't justify the amount of hysteria I've seen from people opposed to the idea. I know a lot of my friends are really excited for this movie and I hope it doesn't let them down, but it's not like they or anybody would've been better off if nobody had even tried rebooting the series.

 

Well, when your trailer gets basic info wrong it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. For starters, only ONE of the original ghostbusters was a scientist, not four. As well as 1984 being more than 30 years ago. So yeah when get that basic of information wrong, don't be surprised when people don't get excited.

Peter, Ray, and Egon were all doctors of parapsychology. Scientists. Winston's credentials were never mentioned in the movies, but assisting in the others' research efforts makes him an amateur scientist in his own right. A lot of people say things like "30 years ago" when they mean a little more than 30 years. It's also not unheard of for trailers to get things wrong. Overall those are pretty weak criticisms to get hung up on.

  • Upvote 4

Share this comment


Link to comment

there was no reason to reboot the Ghostbusters franchise at all, especially a reboot starring one of the most horribly unfunny and untalented actors in modern comedy and directed by the guy who has directed most of said actor's previous movies.
 
call me cynical, but it just feels like a gimmicky attempt at cashing in on a beloved franchise and indicative of Hollywood's larger problem with the trend of churning out sub-par reboots and remakes of movies that were perfectly fine as-is.

 

and "no movie is necessary" is a terrible counter-argument. just because no movie needs to be made doesn't mean every single awful idea for a film should be made. it's that attitude that has lead to the pollution of modern cinema with poorly-made trash, bankrupt production companies, and caused the critical decline of entire genres of film (horror and comedy immediately come to mind).

 

I'm also tired of this rhetoric that if you don't like the new Ghostbusters, you must be sexist. not necessarily from you Aanchir, since you acknowledged that most people aren't and then cited a legitimate example of a sexist response, but I'm seeing that attitude pushed a lot by the media recently. a friend of mine brought up an article that's being cited and shared by prominent people in the industry that touts something to the effect of "Why does there have to be an all-female Ghostbusters? Because people are complaining about it." which is just.. what? one of the most inane things I've ever heard.

 

also have to share what Chromedome said in the previous thread since he explained my use of the word "unnecessary" honestly better than I could've:

 

I think Scythey means more need/want than necessary. Did people want a new Star Wars movie? Yes.

 

But were there really people just desperately hoping a new Ghostbusters film would come out? Probably a few, but not really.

 

I see what she's saying. Was it really necessary to tack another movie onto a dead franchise?

 

and Aanchir, the animated series was pretty beloved by fans, at least the first couple seasons before it was taken over by another company and dumbed-down. there was also a video game released in 2009 set two years after the second movie that reunited the original cast, referred to by Dan Akroyd as "essentially the third movie", which was positively-received and sold very well.

  • Upvote 6

Share this comment


Link to comment

there was no reason to reboot the Ghostbusters franchise at all, especially a reboot starring one of the most horribly unfunny and untalented actors in modern comedy and directed by the guy who has directed most of said actor's previous movies.

Again, I haven't really seen any previous film work by this director or these actors. With that said, just looking at Wikipedia, the last three movies Paul Feig has directed all appear to have been critically and financially successful. He's also directed episodes for critically acclaimed comedy TV series that I have seen, including The Office and Arrested Development. That gives him far better directorial credentials than Ivan Reitman had under his belt when he directed the original Ghostbusters.

 

Comedy is definitely subjective and for all I know I might hate these people's film work (a lot of it sounds pretty raunchy, which I'm not typically a fan of). But evidently there are a lot of people out there who like this group's comedy work.

 

and "no movie is necessary" is a terrible counter-argument. just because no movie needs to be made doesn't mean every single awful idea for a film should be made. it's that attitude that has lead to the pollution of modern cinema with poorly-made trash, bankrupt production companies, and caused the critical decline of entire genres of film (horror and comedy immediately come to mind).

I don't watch a whole lot of comedy or horror films so I can't speak to how those are compared to the past. And nowhere am I saying that this movie should be made just because it can be. What I'm saying is that I'm sort of fed up with "unnecessary" being people's go-to method for dismissing movies they don't like. If people have a problem with a movie, that's fine! Their reasons might be totally legitimate. But phrasing those reasons in a way that could describe any movie just makes it sound like they're afraid of saying something that people might actually disagree with.

 

By comparison, in this post you weren't afraid to say what you actually meant — that you don't think the director or actors are funny, and that Hollywood is obsessed with churning out reboots. Some people might dispute those things, but they're what you believe and you weren't afraid to be upfront about them. I respect that a lot more than when people hide their real thoughts behind weak, inoffensive criticisms like "it's unnecessary".

 

and Aanchir, the animated series was pretty beloved by fans, at least the first couple seasons before it was taken over by another company and dumbed-down. there was also a video game released in 2009 set two years after the second movie that reunited the original cast, referred to by Dan Akroyd as "essentially the third movie", which was positively-received and sold very well.

Ah, alright. I didn't realize that. I've often read comments about it being schlocky and commercialized (like many 80s cartoons were), but maybe those kinds of comments were referring more to the later seasons. I have definitely heard good things about the 2009 video game.

 

By no means was I trying to insinuate that all Ghostbusters media besides the original movie was bad. Just that it's experienced more than its share of mediocrity and yet that hasn't sullied the reputation of the original film. So even if this movie is terrible it won't make the original any less timeless. It'd probably just discourage people from doing another reboot — which, if they can't get it right this time, might be a good thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

call me cynical, but it just feels like a gimmicky attempt at cashing in on a beloved franchise and indicative of Hollywood's larger problem with the trend of churning out sub-par reboots and remakes of movies that were perfectly fine as-is.

 

and "no movie is necessary" is a terrible counter-argument. just because no movie needs to be made doesn't mean every single awful idea for a film should be made. it's that attitude that has lead to the pollution of modern cinema with poorly-made trash, bankrupt production companies, and caused the critical decline of entire genres of film (horror and comedy immediately come to mind).

 

I'm also tired of this rhetoric that if you don't like the new Ghostbusters, you must be sexist. not necessarily from you Aanchir, since you acknowledged that most people aren't and then cited a legitimate example of a sexist response, but I'm seeing that attitude pushed a lot by the media recently. a friend of mine brought up an article that's being cited and shared by prominent people in the industry that touts something to the effect of "Why does there have to be an all-female Ghostbusters? Because people are complaining about it." which is just.. what? one of the most inane things I've ever heard.

Scythey, I honestly never thought we'd ever agree on something. And yet here we are. 2016 is gonna be a weird year.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...