🐱 People are mad about ‘Ghostbusters’ again

https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/new-ghostbusters-sequel-backlash/

Director Jason Reitman revealed on Tuesday that he was called to direct and co-write an upcoming new Ghostbusters movie that follows the original 1984 film directed by his own father, Ivan Reitman, Entertainment Weekly reports. “Finally got the keys to the car,” Jason tweeted.

But before you can say “who ya gonna call?” the backlash percolated online.

In a few months, Sony Pictures plans to begin shooting the film slated for a summer 2020 release, with the older Reitman as producer this time.

“This is the next chapter in the original franchise. It is not a reboot. What happened in the ‘80s happened in the ‘80s, and this is set in the present day,” Jason told EW. “We have a lot of wonderful surprises and new characters for the audience to meet,” he continued.

It’s too early to tell who’s part of the cast, who will be the new characters, and what the plot will be about. However, it’s also highly unlikely the original actors like Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Ernie Hudson will star.

Meanwhile, Jason has reportedly “begun testing teenagers for four mystery roles,” according to sources, says Variety. Sources cited by the Hollywood Reporter even went so far as to say he’s looking to cast two boys and two girls. The project was supposedly so covert, the studio even used fake title “Rust City” to “keep the news under wraps until plans were ready to be unveiled,” Varietyadds.

One thing’s for sure, according to EW: It won’t be related to Sony Pictures’ 2016 all-female Ghostbusters reboot directed by Paul Feig, and which starred Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Kristen Wiig, and Melissa McCarthy.

Even with very little information about the new installment in the famous franchise, already, Tuesday’s announcement of a Ghostbusters “sequel” did not sit well with users on Twitter for different reasons.

For starters, a lot of people are disappointed the all-female reboot is not slated for a sequel.

What upsets some is how it appears that Ghostbusters’ producers are pandering to people (read: sexist males and other haters) who didn’t want the all-female reboot in the first place, and who will then consider this “winning”:

As to be expected, a lot are calling this reboot unnecessary, and even self-proclaimed fans of the entire Ghostbustersfranchise are among them. As @gracerandolph tweets, “So what if it’s in the same ‘universe’?! If new #Ghostbusters doesn’t star #BillMurray #DanAkroyd #ErnieHudson #SigourneyWeaver … nobody cares.”
The only apparent good news this time around: At least the backlash to the latest installment isn’t as sexist.

As a Ghostbusters fan since childhood, I’ll leave this here: “The Ghostbusters universe is big enough to hold a lot of different stories,” Reitman told EW. I daresay truly devoted fans will watch any iteration of this classic.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

One thing people don't ever seem to get is that Ghostbusters was a comedy, which for all intents and purposes has been a dead genre for many years. Now you have comedy-action hybrids, so Ghostbusters 2016 had a big stupid cg boss fight climax scene, which is also part of the reason it doesn't appeal to old fans. Comedies where we laugh at the banter and wordplay don't get made anymore. Banter and wordplay is the entire reason that Murray and Ramis and Aykroyd are so beloved in that film.

 

[lowkey]

is my generation entirely devoid of creativity?

No, but the previous generation prefers to get high in hippy feminist stuff than to let young ones create their filthy right wing propaganda, like any story with a moderately functioning family.

 

[MadDamon]

lol it's like the reboot outrage, but on the different side

 

[Next Task]

Huh. Think the objections to the new one coming out will retroactively make people realise that most of the criticism of the reboot wasn't, in fact, based in misogyny?

Ha, of course not. What you're more likely to see is people objecting to this sequel, and then the usual assholes waiting to see who is cast before deciding what form of bigotry is responsible for those objections. My money's still on misogyny if any of the new ghost busters are women, though possibly racism if more than one of them are non-white.

 

[thismanlies]

Meanwhile, Jason has reportedly “begun testing teenagers for four mystery roles,” according to sources, says Variety. Sources cited by the Hollywood Reporter even went so far as to say he’s looking to cast two boys and two girls. The project was supposedly so covert, the studio even used fake title “Rust City” to “keep the news under wraps until plans were ready to be unveiled,” Variety adds.

Sounds like they're trying to be a little more subtle with their woke garbage. Keyword: little.

 

[Guts Gets Some]

If i remember correctly, i think there was a lot of banter between Eduardo and Garrett (the guy in the wheelchair), proving that he wasn't just a token character defined by a disability, like you said, the cast may be diverse, but i'm pretty sure if this cartoon aired today, it would trigger a lot of people, since the show made a couple of jokes about Garrett being in a wheelchair

The best thing about Garrett was his jock personality inside the wheelchair. He would regularly make fun of his own disability or be sarcastic about it, like "Yeah, I know I am, so what?"
Which is the healthy approach to any disability, I say. And he's a total athlete despite it; it didn't even bring him down. He's more physically fit than any of the team.
And that's why they wrote him in the chair to begin with. They always wanted that personality, but it was bland as just a normal guy. Suddenly put him in a chair, it makes him not only much more likable, but more interesting as well.

How many action shows have you seen that include someone in a push wheelchair? I'd never seen it before.

 

[Haramburger]

I'm (currently, subject to change) very excited for this movie just to give Paul Feig another "FUCK YOU" to his face. It's pretty unusual to get a double-sided experiment like this in theaters to prove where the money is regarding pandering. As long as the movie stays on message and spits in the face of SJWs I'm willing to throw money at it. Best case scenario we have a case study for decades proving woke = broke & catering to neckbeards = $$$, and the usual places will provide salt for years.

How many action shows have you seen that include someone in a push wheelchair?

Chip from Transformers was one of the first, but he was a desk jockey/repair guy/passenger to fit inside Transformers.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

I don't know when hollywood is gonna realize "Wow look at how badass these women are!" isn't enough for a good movie. You need the badass women to actually seem like they're overcoming a problem, not just whipping out a new mad scientist gizmo appropriate to the given situation.

Overcoming adversity is key for an interesting story. But having women not instantly succeed (unless it's due to those filthy cheating men utilizing the patriarchy) is the same as making them sex slaves, after all, what if they're not obviously better than the men? A dirty sexist might see that and conclude the men are better!

 

[Billy_Sama]

I am get more entertainment over the failures of Hollywood creating failed big money franchises than movies themselves.

This salt is good with my popcorn

 

[CatParty]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottm...tar-wars-halloween-jurassic-world-box-office/

Jason Reitman, son of Ivan Reitman, will be directing and co-writing yet another Ghostbusters movie (and there's already an announcement teaser). Unlike the Paul Feig-directed reboot from 2016 (which ignited a firestorm of online controversy for... uh... starring four women as Ghostbusters), this will be set in the same world as the first two Ghostbusters movies, essentially acting as a long-threatened Ghostbusters 3. The goal is to shoot the as-of-yet-uncasted movie this summer and make it Sony's big summer 2020 offering. Little is known about the film's plot (or who among the original cast will return), but an educated guess would presume another legacy sequel which combines new, young heroes with the original cast acting as mentors or elder statesmen. So, yeah, Ghostbusters is going the route of Creed ($173 million on a $35m budget), The Force Awakens ($2 billion worldwide) and Halloween ($250m/$10m).

To say that I have mixed feelings about this is an understatement. On one hand, you're rewarding a white male director whose last five movies bombed (and of those, only the two starring Charlize Theron and penned by Diablo Cody received positive reviews) the keys to a hugely valuable franchise mostly because he's the son of the guy who directed those first two Ghostbusters movies. And yes, unintentional or not, you're essentially rewarding the specific demographics who reacted in the very worst way to the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot with the thing they claimed to want instead of the... horrors... all-female sci-fi comedy. And yet, we have only ourselves to blame. Studios aren't charities and they tend to want movies that attract moviegoers and make money.

Reitman's previous five movies (Young Adult, Labor Day, Men, Women and Children, Tully and The Front Runner) bombed at least partially because the folks who complain that Hollywood doesn't make original or non-IP movies for adults didn't see those in theaters in the first place. When you ignore (deep breath) Money Monster, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, Life, Only the Brave, Roman Israel, Esq. and All the Money in the World and only flock to Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle ($962 million) and Venom ($855m), well, here you go. When you don't show up for Tomorrowland ($209m on a $190m budget) and Queen of Katwe, you can't blame Walt Disney for overdosing on nostalgia-driven IP fare. As much as I might roll my eyes at the concept, a legacy sequel to Ghostbusters makes sense in 2019.

The old-school reboot is essentially dead. Most of them didn't really spawn successful franchises. Even Star Trek, Amazing Spider-Man and Man of Steel were... at best, short-lived successes. Moreover, the new-wave legacy sequel has mostly been financial (and critical) gold. The likes of Jurassic World ($1.6 billion), Creed ($173 million), Mad Max: Fury Road ($370m), Halloween ($250m) and The Force Awakens ($2b) have earned mostly positive reviews, general fan approval and relatively successful box office results. Sure, there's also failed revamps like Independence Day: Resurgence and Terminator Gensisys, but the full-on reboot route has yielded far more failures along the lines of Robin Hood, Robocop, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Total Recall. Kids don't care that a reboot is newbie-friendly while their parents want to see new movies set in the old continuity.

Considering how many right choices, in terms of casting, concept and execution, that Sony made with Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, and considering how halfway decent Men in Black International looks, it stands to reason that Sony is at least going to try to fashion a movie that doesn't entirely depend on moviegoers caring about Ghostbusters as an IP. Jumanji 2 ($404 million domestic/$962m worldwide) had a fun cast (Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Kevin Hart and Jack Black), a strong hook (four kids get zapped into a video game and get turned into exaggerated video game avatars) and worked as its own stand-alone adventure comedy. It was also a straight sequel so folks weren't obsessing over whether it lived up to the 1995 Robin Williams movie.

Jason Reitman and co-writer Gil Kenan (Monster House) will have to look at the IP not as a crutch but as an obstacle to overcome. If they can offer a splashy cast (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), at least some of the main cast returning to play (The Force Awakens) and an interesting hook (Jurassic World) that sounds interesting even to folks who don't necessarily need a Ghostbusters 3, then Sony might have an easy lay-up on their hands. That's also assuming that they don't repeat Paul Feig's mistake of spending $144 million on a reboot with little overseas value and (as it turned out) no playdate in China (Sony was unable to get around China's issues with movies featuring the paranormal), but I'm presuming that this will cost closer to Venom, Pixels and Jumanji ($90m-$110m) than Independence Day: Resurgence.

Yes, if Bill Murray doesn't return, we could end up with another Independence Day: Resurgence situation (where everyone came back except the big star), but that's where the budget comes in. Independence Day: Resurgence made $370 million worldwide, which was terrible for a $165m-budgeted sequel to a movie that earned $821m back in 1996, but would have been just fine for a $90m sci-fi comedy. Say what you will about the Melissa McCarthy/Kristen Wiig/Leslie Jones/Kate McKinnon reboot (and I think the extended cut is about as good as the 1984 original and certainly better than the merely-okay Ghostbusters II), but the film's $126m domestic/$229m worldwide cume would have been okay and sequel-worthy on a frugal $90m budget. Don't make the Star Trek mistake of requiring MCU-worthy results.

The notion of Jason Reitman following up five straight adult-skewing flops with a sequel to his dad's classic 1980s comedy is every bit as "failing upward" cynical as it sounds. And the idea of giving the most disrespectful Ghostbusters fanboys, like the ones who temporarily drove Leslie Jones off of Twitter, even a little of what they want is (unintentionally?) odious. But Sony is making a smart play, especially if they keep the budget in check. A legacy sequel/passing-the-torch installment to Ghostbusters has the potential to break out like (relatively speaking) Jurassic World, Creed, The Force Awakens and Halloween. And Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (as well as, presumably, Men in Black International) shows that Sony may know how to juice their old IP in a way that appeals to the agnostic.

Jason Reitman's Ghostbusters 3 (or whatever it ends up being called) will aim for a summer 2020 release date. I hate that this is happening. I hate that the misogynistic Ghostbusters trolls (and if that's not you, then this isn't about you) are getting what they want. I hate that audiences are punishing Hollywood for still trying to release movies like Only the Brave and Tully even as they complain that Hollywood is nothing but sequels and reboots. But I won't pretend that Reitman isn't a talented filmmaker who makes more good movies than bad ones and that Sony hasn't shown an understanding of how to revive a property like this in the recent past. It worked with Halloween, it worked with Star Wars, and it may work with Ghostbusters.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Wah wah wah, this director is white and his successes were really only because of the not white people.

No comment about the movie itself, just that a white person is going to benefit and that's fucking terrible.

 

[ducktales4gameboy]

1980s NYC was the star of Ghostbusters.

They might be able to do a sequel if they understand this.

I remember an interview a decade ago with the surviving cast talking about a possible 3 and them bringing up that they had finally got a plot that they all thought was good, but it had wound up in dev hell for so long that it had gotten canceled.

The frame plot was that they wind up going to hell somehow, except hell is just NYC except at its worst all of the time. Never-ending traffic jams, public transportation that's always late, constant noise and car horns, every single pedestrian being an asshole, etc. I'm sad we never got that movie for the potential dialog alone.

 

[Ebonic Tutor]

I remember an interview a decade ago with the surviving cast talking about a possible 3 and them bringing up that they had finally got a plot that they all thought was good, but it had wound up in dev hell for so long that it had gotten canceled.

The frame plot was that they wind up going to hell somehow, except hell is just NYC except at its worst all of the time. Never-ending traffic jams, public transportation that's always late, constant noise and car horns, every single pedestrian being an asshole, etc. I'm sad we never got that movie for the potential dialog alone.

If I remember right Aykroyd wanted it to be "R" rated too.

As far as Extreme Ghostbusters, the show was pretty damn good and did diversity right even if it was Burger King Kids Club style.

 

[One Man Bland]

I remember an interview a decade ago with the surviving cast talking about a possible 3 and them bringing up that they had finally got a plot that they all thought was good, but it had wound up in dev hell for so long that it had gotten canceled.

The frame plot was that they wind up going to hell somehow, except hell is just NYC except at its worst all of the time. Never-ending traffic jams, public transportation that's always late, constant noise and car horns, every single pedestrian being an asshole, etc. I'm sad we never got that movie for the potential dialog alone.

Wasn’t part of the reason it ended up in development hell because Bill Murray was being really difficult about it or something?

 

[Ebonic Tutor]

Wasn’t part of the reason it ended up in development hell because Bill Murray was being really difficult about it or something?

It was, him and Ramis had a falling out during the making of Groundhog Day and didn't want to have anything to do with Ramis for a long time. It was a wonder they got him to do lines for the game.

 

[Whatevs]

Ivan Reitman's son hung around these guys growing up, if anyone can capture the essence of what made Ghostbusters what it was, he probably could.

The thing that Ghostbusters 2016 was missing, that Ghostbusters, Caddyshack, Stripes, hell even Airplane is that what made Ghostbusters so good is that the characters were not in on the joke. The characters were basically slacker, loser professors that were, besides Egon, were basically scamming their university out of money so they could putz around. When they get fired, they started Ghostbusters up as basically a scam to prey on the people paranoid about ghosts so they could get free money.

At first, Peter didn't really believe in it, Ray was just a science nerd and hoped something would happen, Egon just wanted to make cool theoretical shit and see if it would work, and Winston says flat out "as long as there is a paycheck, I'll believe in whatever". So these four characters, basically normal dudes get thrown into this weird fucking supernatural world, and they aren't in on the joke of getting slimed, a haunted fridge, a loose hellhound trouncing around NYC, an old god that could only come about if two people fucked, a giant marshmellow man going down the street. Pretty damn hilariously absurd, and the characters are like "oh shit, this is all real" and never see the jokes.

This most memorable scene, has Murray playing it straight, none of this that 2016 had "yeah I got slimed everywhere, even all up in my crack" bullshit, Ankroyd all excited and nerdy for the scientific breakthrough, and Ramis like "yeah save some for me" and not once did they break character.

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

Ivan Reitman's son hung around these guys growing up, if anyone can capture the essence of what made Ghostbusters what it was, he probably could.

The thing that Ghostbusters 2016 was missing, that Ghostbusters, Caddyshack, Stripes, hell even Airplane is that what made Ghostbusters so good is that the characters were not in on the joke. The characters were basically slacker, loser professors that were, besides Egon, were basically scamming their university out of money so they could putz around. When they get fired, they started Ghostbusters up as basically a scam to prey on the people paranoid about ghosts so they could get free money.

At first, Peter didn't really believe in it, Ray was just a science nerd and hoped something would happen, Egon just wanted to make cool theoretical shit and see if it would work, and Winston says flat out "as long as there is a paycheck, I'll believe in whatever". So these four characters, basically normal dudes get thrown into this weird fucking supernatural world, and they aren't in on the joke of getting slimed, a haunted fridge, a loose hellhound trouncing around NYC, an old god that could only come about if two people fucked, a giant marshmellow man going down the street. Pretty damn hilarious, and the characters are like "oh shit, this is all real" and never see the jokes.

This most memorable scene, has Murray playing it straight, none of this that 2016 had "yeah I got slimed everywhere, even all up in my crack" bullshit, Ankroyd all excited and nerdy for the scientific breakthrough, and Ramis like "yeah save some for me" and not once did they break character.

Originally Eddie Murphy was to be Winston and he was the one to be slimed. I wonder how different things would have been had it been Murphy as Winston, and how much of a role he'd play in the film compared to Hudson, who was kinda a straight man.

 

[Munchingonfish]

At least the backlash to the latest installment isn’t as sexist.

Half the tweets this guy chose to include are whining about the cast being all male. That's despite the fact that no one has said it would be.

Sarcasm only works if you're not seething behind it. Whining is still whining.

 

[ColorfulCassowary]

Ghostballbusters lost Sony about 10 million or more. Wikipedia makes it seem like they got their money back (since the production cost does not count the advertising, it says it's 144 million), but if you read the reception section, they say that they needed 300 million simply to break even. There's no way that shit was getting a sequel.

 

[GrungyLawnChlorinate]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottm...tar-wars-halloween-jurassic-world-box-office/

View attachment 641878

Jason Reitman, son of Ivan Reitman, will be directing and co-writing yet another Ghostbusters movie (and there's already an announcement teaser). Unlike the Paul Feig-directed reboot from 2016 (which ignited a firestorm of online controversy for... uh... starring four women as Ghostbusters), this will be set in the same world as the first two Ghostbusters movies, essentially acting as a long-threatened Ghostbusters 3. The goal is to shoot the as-of-yet-uncasted movie this summer and make it Sony's big summer 2020 offering. Little is known about the film's plot (or who among the original cast will return), but an educated guess would presume another legacy sequel which combines new, young heroes with the original cast acting as mentors or elder statesmen. So, yeah, Ghostbusters is going the route of Creed ($173 million on a $35m budget), The Force Awakens ($2 billion worldwide) and Halloween ($250m/$10m).

To say that I have mixed feelings about this is an understatement. On one hand, you're rewarding a white male director whose last five movies bombed (and of those, only the two starring Charlize Theron and penned by Diablo Cody received positive reviews) the keys to a hugely valuable franchise mostly because he's the son of the guy who directed those first two Ghostbusters movies. And yes, unintentional or not, you're essentially rewarding the specific demographics who reacted in the very worst way to the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot with the thing they claimed to want instead of the... horrors... all-female sci-fi comedy. And yet, we have only ourselves to blame. Studios aren't charities and they tend to want movies that attract moviegoers and make money.

Reitman's previous five movies (Young Adult, Labor Day, Men, Women and Children, Tully and The Front Runner) bombed at least partially because the folks who complain that Hollywood doesn't make original or non-IP movies for adults didn't see those in theaters in the first place. When you ignore (deep breath) Money Monster, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, Life, Only the Brave, Roman Israel, Esq. and All the Money in the World and only flock to Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle ($962 million) and Venom ($855m), well, here you go. When you don't show up for Tomorrowland ($209m on a $190m budget) and Queen of Katwe, you can't blame Walt Disney for overdosing on nostalgia-driven IP fare. As much as I might roll my eyes at the concept, a legacy sequel to Ghostbusters makes sense in 2019.

The old-school reboot is essentially dead. Most of them didn't really spawn successful franchises. Even Star Trek, Amazing Spider-Man and Man of Steel were... at best, short-lived successes. Moreover, the new-wave legacy sequel has mostly been financial (and critical) gold. The likes of Jurassic World ($1.6 billion), Creed ($173 million), Mad Max: Fury Road ($370m), Halloween ($250m) and The Force Awakens ($2b) have earned mostly positive reviews, general fan approval and relatively successful box office results. Sure, there's also failed revamps like Independence Day: Resurgence and Terminator Gensisys, but the full-on reboot route has yielded far more failures along the lines of Robin Hood, Robocop, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Total Recall. Kids don't care that a reboot is newbie-friendly while their parents want to see new movies set in the old continuity.

Considering how many right choices, in terms of casting, concept and execution, that Sony made with Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, and considering how halfway decent Men in Black International looks, it stands to reason that Sony is at least going to try to fashion a movie that doesn't entirely depend on moviegoers caring about Ghostbusters as an IP. Jumanji 2 ($404 million domestic/$962m worldwide) had a fun cast (Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Kevin Hart and Jack Black), a strong hook (four kids get zapped into a video game and get turned into exaggerated video game avatars) and worked as its own stand-alone adventure comedy. It was also a straight sequel so folks weren't obsessing over whether it lived up to the 1995 Robin Williams movie.

Jason Reitman and co-writer Gil Kenan (Monster House) will have to look at the IP not as a crutch but as an obstacle to overcome. If they can offer a splashy cast (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), at least some of the main cast returning to play (The Force Awakens) and an interesting hook (Jurassic World) that sounds interesting even to folks who don't necessarily need a Ghostbusters 3, then Sony might have an easy lay-up on their hands. That's also assuming that they don't repeat Paul Feig's mistake of spending $144 million on a reboot with little overseas value and (as it turned out) no playdate in China (Sony was unable to get around China's issues with movies featuring the paranormal), but I'm presuming that this will cost closer to Venom, Pixels and Jumanji ($90m-$110m) than Independence Day: Resurgence.

Yes, if Bill Murray doesn't return, we could end up with another Independence Day: Resurgence situation (where everyone came back except the big star), but that's where the budget comes in. Independence Day: Resurgence made $370 million worldwide, which was terrible for a $165m-budgeted sequel to a movie that earned $821m back in 1996, but would have been just fine for a $90m sci-fi comedy. Say what you will about the Melissa McCarthy/Kristen Wiig/Leslie Jones/Kate McKinnon reboot (and I think the extended cut is about as good as the 1984 original and certainly better than the merely-okay Ghostbusters II), but the film's $126m domestic/$229m worldwide cume would have been okay and sequel-worthy on a frugal $90m budget. Don't make the Star Trek mistake of requiring MCU-worthy results.

The notion of Jason Reitman following up five straight adult-skewing flops with a sequel to his dad's classic 1980s comedy is every bit as "failing upward" cynical as it sounds. And the idea of giving the most disrespectful Ghostbusters fanboys, like the ones who temporarily drove Leslie Jones off of Twitter, even a little of what they want is (unintentionally?) odious. But Sony is making a smart play, especially if they keep the budget in check. A legacy sequel/passing-the-torch installment to Ghostbusters has the potential to break out like (relatively speaking) Jurassic World, Creed, The Force Awakens and Halloween. And Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (as well as, presumably, Men in Black International) shows that Sony may know how to juice their old IP in a way that appeals to the agnostic.

Jason Reitman's Ghostbusters 3 (or whatever it ends up being called) will aim for a summer 2020 release date. I hate that this is happening. I hate that the misogynistic Ghostbusters trolls (and if that's not you, then this isn't about you) are getting what they want. I hate that audiences are punishing Hollywood for still trying to release movies like Only the Brave and Tully even as they complain that Hollywood is nothing but sequels and reboots. But I won't pretend that Reitman isn't a talented filmmaker who makes more good movies than bad ones and that Sony hasn't shown an understanding of how to revive a property like this in the recent past. It worked with Halloween, it worked with Star Wars, and it may work with Ghostbusters.

A Jewish man who claims to be white has a long history of explicitly espousing hatred for white people? How novel!

But really, four teenagers to star in the new film, two boys, two girls? That's not good, that's just pandering in a different direction. Middle-aged men or no deal! We don't need any more Netflix Originals.