🐱 We Should Have Cherished the 2016 Ghostbusters When We Had the Chance

CatParty


Setting my time machine (don’t ask me where I got it) back to about early-mid 2016, I am going back to tell past humans two things. The first will be to—after referencing the general state of everything by waving my arms hysterically—tell everyone that it can and will get much, much worse. The second will be that although that is very much true, there will soon be a short-term tonic. That tonic arrives on July 15, and it’s the new Ghostbusters movie. On that day and any day after, buy your tickets, sit down, and cherish every second. Cherish the expertly assembled ensemble of hilarious people making every sequence a riot; cherish the bonkers new take on spirits, spectres, and ghouls that need busting; cherish the titan that is Kate McKinnon stealing every scene and getting her own slo-mo action sequence; and cherish the fact that this is a reboot/remake/whatever that means to respect what came before, but remains 100 percent confident in its new vision. Cherish every fleeting moment, because while it may not be perfect or the new take on the series you were expecting, I was telling the truth when I said what’s coming would be much, much worse.

The necessity for Terminator-style time travel stems from the fact that when the movie from director Paul Feig and starring Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, and McKinnon dropped over five years ago, we didn’t give ourselves a chance to bask in its comedic brilliance. Instead, the entire conversation was dominated by controversy, and by “controversy”, I mean big babies taking to social media. Said babies made the first trailer the most “disliked” film trailer in YouTube history, and in turn made every conversation about the movie have to share space with sexism aimed at the cast, racism aimed at Jones, and general rage that this reboot simply didn’t look like the new movie they wanted. In essence, any praise (or valid criticism) was drowned out by children who opened a box on Christmas, and saw that the toy they got wasn’t the exact one they wanted, and proceeded to pout a la Veruca Salt. And a big chunk of this was all before the movie even came out.

Not even needing these five years for retrospective, it was instantly clear how much of a shame that response was. Had we as a society had the opportunity to have a normal discourse about the movie, and have the foresight to see what was coming after the success of Star Wars: The Force Awakens the previous December, people maybe would have better embraced how Feig, co-writer Katie Dippold and the cast delivered the best possible version of a reboot of a beloved franchise. Understanding the inherent silliness of the 1984 original’s premise, everyone involved embraced the lunacy with a modern sense of humor, upped the ante on the supernatural bedlam, and threw out just enough references to function while standing firm that this was its very own beast. It was not beholden from top to bottom with what came before, and even if the plot beats could ring similar, every character, joke, and ghostly figure worked to solidify that this vision was going to be working on its own terms.

And yet, despite making a wildly fun movie that lived up to the spirit of the original and opened a portal to a world of new opportunities, the damage was perhaps done before opening weekend. With disappointing box office that didn’t justify the budget ($229 million worldwide off a $140-150 million production) blending with online vitriol, Sony began making plans that would lead to the current crisis that is a far greater omen for the state of modern series development. The aforementioned “worse” hit theaters last week in the form of the cinematic equivalent of a product recall: Ghostbusters: Afterlife.

The antithesis of what preceded it, Afterlife is two hours of a studio issuing a response to a very small contingent of angry fanboys that reads, “We’re sorry we didn’t make the movie you wanted to see, so here’s some free Easter Eggs, and we hope you remain a loyal customer.” Hiding behind the guise of a young cast being the “new generation” of the series, the movie treats them as the end result of a Stranger Things algorithm who exist solely as catalysts for a story about literally digging up the past. As if gulping down a witch’s brew of ‘80s nostalgia that combines the explosive hit Things, the more explosive box office of The Force Awakens, and the deafening screams of a subset of Ghostbusters fanboys who possessed rage towards the 2016 movie before it hit theaters, Afterlife functions as a feckless, weak-willed studio hodgepodge. It’s like Sony was so afraid of the rage of online commenters and fanboys that they basically made the first piece of safely adaptable fan fiction that came across their desk.

At the very worst, it’s the continuation of a precedent within a studio system to put not even fans, but simply the angriest, most vocal fans first, no matter the cost to creative filmmaking. At the least, it’s flat out lazy. If the 2016 Ghostbusterslived to give its characters their own voice and the world its own tone, so as to carve out its own name in a popular series, Afterlife is all about taking every absurd element of the original and treating them like excerpts from a sort of Dead Sea Scroll, worshipping with utter seriousness a movie in which Dan Aykroyd gets blown by a ghost, as if this fun, low-stakes comedy is the enshrined history of the Holy Saints Spangler, Venkman, Stantz, and Zeddemore. Every beat that isn’t rudimentary childhood antics is dedicated not to telling its own story, but rehashing what came before as a way of appeasing a fan base that needs to be coddled with the familiar, as if to be told their years of dedication to a goofy movie about ghosts actually does mean something, and that their future dollars can continue to be safely spent.

I’m not here to say that Ghostbusters: Afterlife is in itself a completely imperfect movie, and the 2016 Ghostbusters is a perfect one. But between the two, only the latter seems to have understood what the real spirit of Ghostbusters is, and in turn, added to it. The first movie got lucky and became a monster success in 1984, but there’s not much there that hints it was a true movie franchise behemoth. With the 2016 film, we got exactly what we needed to jump start the series: a hysterical time at the theater that could’ve been the start of something wild and increasingly fun, all while respecting what came before and expanding its own horizons for everyone to grow with. But that kind of vision for an established franchise is probably done for, and we should’ve enjoyed it when we had the chance. What creativity was bubbling there is now gone in place of shameless fanservice catered by yet another studio afraid to take a chance on something different with their precious IP, and all for supposed fans who couldn’t be less deserving.
 
So I take it the new movie is pretty good?
Saw it with my GF Saturday and it got the most laughs ive had from a movie in a long time. Its funny and a fitting tribute to Mr. Ramis.

To the author: This movie wasnt made for you. It's made for the existing fans of the franchise AS WELL AS bringing in new fans of people who enjoy movies, not to push out already established fans in a vain attempt to bring in an audience of the politically "correct" who actively hate fun.
 
While the 2016 movie is really bad, I agree that it captures the spirit of the 1984 movie, unlike the new one.
The OG Ghostbusters was a cynical dry comedy that constantly pokes fun at itself.
GB 2016 tried to be that but the writing was awful (or rather, there was little to no writing).
GB: Afterlife is treating itself and the 1st movie way too seriously.
Every single memorable moment from the original is treated like some heartfelt memory: "Remember this dumb throwaway joke that made you slightly snicker? Wasn't it a truly epic emotional moment that defined your childhood?"
Yes, I remember, the joke was mildly funny.... and?
It's like when Rogue One showed Buttface from that scene in A New Hope in the cantina.
OK, it's a reference.... so fucking what?
Then they're pulling on your heartstrings by literally using the dead Harold Ramis in order to make money.

The sad thing is that fanboys are eating this shit up.
It's so easy to please them.
People shit on JJ Abrams but he figured out fanboys.
The Force Awakens was a perfect fanboy pleasing product and the new GB is just that but with some nouns and verbs replaced in the script.

People say they've learned from the SW Sequels but their reaction to GB: Afterlife proves them wrong.
 
I don't understand the consoomer mindset. They know the 2016 movie still exists, right? They can watch it any time they want, it's going to be avaliable forever. Pretty much all music and movies back to the mid-20th century are avaliable free online. Including the original Ghostbusters, every sequel and remake.

But cryposting about The Big Bad Fanboys on your blogazine is easier than...sitting down and watching the movies you want to watch? It's not even easier, they're literally making life harder for themselves.
 
I was seeing merchandise for the 2016 movie in discount bins less than a month after its release. It was pure, unadulterated dogshit where humor was sacrificed on the altar of identity politics in order to cater to the whims of dangerhair blimps on Twitter who didn't even go to see it. Like most 90s kids, I was gay for anything Ghostbusters for awhile-had most of the action figures and what have you, though I only really cared for the original film. If I were to watch it now, I'd probably still enjoy it. But this raging nostalgia boner for the franchise just baffles me. Then again, my passion for all my favorite childhood franchises evaporated long ago.
 
While the 2016 movie is really bad, I agree that it captures the spirit of the 1984 movie, unlike the new one.
There's a better argument that GB2016 is closer to Filmation's Ghostbusters than it is to the 1984 film.
Then they're pulling on your heartstrings by literally using the dead Harold Ramis in order to make money.
One of the sad facts about current year Hollywood is that the studios became creatively bankrupt decades ago. We should've seen the warning signs when they gave us remakes of 60s television shows like Lost in Space and the Mod Squad in the late 90s, and then ramped it up in the 00s and 10s. No corporation is going to spend hundreds of millions on an untested property because their shareholders expect a return on their investment, hence the endless remakes/sequels/franchises they shit out. In the case of GB2016, fans wanted a sequel and the studio--Amy Pascal in particular--wanted an all-female reboot, market forces be damned. So they inflated the production and promotional budgets and then they had the audacity to attack their customers who proceeded to tell them, "Fuck you! I'm taking my money elsewhere."

Thus GB2016 was a monumental flop.

Afterlife stands to do better as it has half the production budget of GB2016 and better buzz. I agree that it is a cynical cash grab on the studio's part because nostalgia's all the entertainment industry has, though I do sense that it has more heart to it because A) Jason Reitman directed it and had an emotional stake in the film's success, and B) Ivan Reitman and Dan Ackroyd were heavily involved. For me, part of my enjoyment was looking at the scenery because Sony shot the film in southern Alberta so I was familiar with the locations. I certainly hope that there is no sequel because it was a nice nostalgia trip and would rather not see it get milked....

...but who am I kidding? This is Hollywood.
 
I kinda liked GB16. The original idea for the plot isn't as bad: current academic wants to be promoted to but discovers a book about ghosts she once cowrote but has now disavowed is back on the market because of a former friend, the other cowriter. Such potential wasted.

Anyway, author of the article:

1638207587352.png

 
The one good thing about this is that it provides a pretty good sociological lens through which to view the modern leftist re: their tendency to latch onto something stupid, gay and/or destructive, and absolutely not be able to let it go even after every sensible being in the world has told them how retarded they are, they just double down.

And notice, it's almost exclusively people who fall on the political left axis that are pushing THIS hard over a shitty 6 year old reboot movie. It's important to them because they honestly put parts of their identity into this pile of shit - omg girl power YASSSS GURL SLAY queer rep yo weeeeeee - and when everyone else remarked what a pile of shit it was they took the insult personally.

I guarantee you that none of the people bitching this much over it vote Republican and even more than that I'd be willing to bet at least half of them will never be women.
 
While the 2016 movie is really bad, I agree that it captures the spirit of the 1984 movie, unlike the new one.
The OG Ghostbusters was a cynical dry comedy that constantly pokes fun at itself.
GB 2016 tried to be that but the writing was awful (or rather, there was little to no writing).
GB: Afterlife is treating itself and the 1st movie way too seriously.
Every single memorable moment from the original is treated like some heartfelt memory: "Remember this dumb throwaway joke that made you slightly snicker? Wasn't it a truly epic emotional moment that defined your childhood?"
Yes, I remember, the joke was mildly funny.... and?
It's like when Rogue One showed Buttface from that scene in A New Hope in the cantina.
OK, it's a reference.... so fucking what?
Then they're pulling on your heartstrings by literally using the dead Harold Ramis in order to make money.

The sad thing is that fanboys are eating this shit up.
It's so easy to please them.
People shit on JJ Abrams but he figured out fanboys.
The Force Awakens was a perfect fanboy pleasing product and the new GB is just that but with some nouns and verbs replaced in the script.

People say they've learned from the SW Sequels but their reaction to GB: Afterlife proves them wrong.

The brilliance of the first movie was that it's a comedy but the cast isn't in on the joke. They play it straight.

So I take it the new one is too high on member berries? I think that's a problem in general with tributes and throwbacks. They don't quite get subtlety. Maybe they think people are too stupid to get a reference unless it's in your face.
 
Back