🐱 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.

 

[Clem Fandango]

How DID she become a thing? Empirical evidence suggests she can't even form coherent thoughts. Granted, that's not unusual in Hollywood, but still.

Why, her effortless wit and graceful beauty of course.

 

[thx1138]

View attachment 643899

"I'm Leslie Jones, and I no longer desire a film career."

 

[BrunoMattei]

"I'm Leslie Jones, and I no longer desire a film career."

She would have to have a career in the first place.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

View attachment 643899

"I can't make several more million from a sequel and related promotions" is definitely like something evil Trump would do.

 

[ColorfulCassowary]

View attachment 643899

Y'know, you kind of open yourself up to racial slurs and jokes when you talk like a character out of an A Wyatt Mann cartoon.

I have no idea. Her Wikipedia article suggests she sucked hard at standup comedy to the point that she was booed offstage opening for Jamie Foxx and then sometime later she was what basically amounted to a diversity hire for SNL. I have no doubt that allowed her to network given how there were other SNL alums in GB2K16. So, typical Hollywood patronage, to answer your question.

I liked her in that movie because despite being a caricature like everyone else she at least responded like a human being to the events happening around her.

Holy shit, someone needs to find that video of her getting booed off stage. That'd be amazing.

 

[Creep3r]

View attachment 643919

Or this guy. This nigga scared the daylights out of me when I was little.

Samhain, Cathulhu (that's how his name was written in the show and comics) and the Boogey Man from the cartoon along with the Spider Witch from the game and the giant Sloar (mentioned in the film and seen in the game and comics) would make fantastic villains in any new project. A shame they might not do that. They'll probably stick with rehashes of ghosts from the first film for nostalgia bucks, but any of those would be nice to see, but I don't have much faith in Sony since its always 50/50 with them.

Sweet action...

But in the end, the game was the only true sequel/finale I ever needed.

Edit: Seems like every damn news site won't stop talking about Leslie Jones.
https://ew.com/movies/2019/01/20/leslie-jones-tweets-ghostbusters/
https://www.vulture.com/2019/01/leslie-jones-weighs-in-on-new-ghostbusters-a-dick-move.html
https://io9.gizmodo.com/leslie-jones-is-no-fan-of-the-new-ghostbusters-movie-1831907258

Google Ghostbusters and she's all you get. I'm honestly mixed on what to expect from this new film since they could easily fuck it up as with most modern reboots/sequels. And if this movie is successful, they say they're going to make an animated movie to follow it...

 

[Jaimas]

Samhain, Cathulhu (that's how his name was written in the show and comics) and the Boogey Man from the cartoon along with the Spider Witch from the game and the giant Sloar (mentioned in the film and seen in the game and comics) would make fantastic villains in any new project. A shame they might not do that. They'll probably stick with rehashes of ghosts from the first film for nostalgia bucks, but any of those would be nice to see, but I don't have much faith in Sony since its always 50/50 with them.

But in the end, the game was the only true sequel/finale I ever needed.

Edit: Seems like every damn news site won't stop talking about Leslie Jones.
https://ew.com/movies/2019/01/20/leslie-jones-tweets-ghostbusters/
https://www.vulture.com/2019/01/leslie-jones-weighs-in-on-new-ghostbusters-a-dick-move.html
https://io9.gizmodo.com/leslie-jones-is-no-fan-of-the-new-ghostbusters-movie-1831907258

Google Ghostbusters and she's all you get. I'm honestly mixed on what to expect from this new film since they could easily fuck it up as with most modern reboots/sequels. And if this movie is successful, they say they're going to make an animated movie to follow it...

The game was worth it for the Vigo gags alone.

 

[Dan Abrams]

View attachment 643899

She's literally such an unlikable living stereotype of a person. Her being in Ghostbusters was literally a gibsmedat. She should be thankful for the opportunity she was given.

 

[Creep3r]

The game was worth it for the Vigo gags alone.

I loved every fucking second of talking to Vigo's portrait and how he's basically just living with them much to his displeasure. I also like how near the end of the game he starts casually asking you to scratch his nose and clean his frame and even gives you a genuine warning about the evils to come, making it seem as though the old psycho has actually warmed up to you.

 

[Fagnacious D]

How DID she become a thing? Empirical evidence suggests she can't even form coherent thoughts. Granted, that's not unusual in Hollywood, but still.

She has no style
She has no grace
This Actress has a funny face

 

[RP 520]

How DID she become a thing?

She chimped out at people for hating the fembusters, called people that hated it racist and sexist. She made death threats at people shitting on the film, had her followers harass and mass report people who said bad things about the film, detractors, and anyone who argued with her. She then got in a slap fight with Milo Yanni-whatever his name is over it, /pol/ noticed at this point, got involved and she started getting called Harambe. Someone from /pol/ hacked her official website and found nudes of her that she had stored on the site itself, she pinned this all on Milo, claimed he started a harassment campaign against her and got him banned from twitter. She was hailed a hero for getting Milo banned and gained a core of loyal followers. 'News' sites jumped on it and wrote articles on how she was an oppressed black woman being targeted by racist misogynist alt-righters.

Edit: Didn't she used to have a thread somewhere?

 

[Jub-Jub]

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.

It lost way more than 10 million. Not only should you double the production budget to find out the real cost of a film, but you have to take percentages for the reported gross ticket sales as movie chains and distributors like getting paid too. A good rule of thumb is to take 50-60% domestic and 35-40% international, there are exceptions as big films like Star wars managed to get 65-70% domestic and China return is closer to 20-25%.

Boxofficemojo says it grossed $128,350,574 domestically and $100,796,935 international for a total of $229,147,509 so it's already -$71 million on production and advertising budget without factoring in return percentages. So Sony likely spent ~$300 million, earned ~$117 million (generous 60/40 percentages) and took a bath to the tune of -$183 million. Blu-rays won't save you from that hole.

This is a beautiful controversy because no matter what happens, it generates content for us:

I'm all for those, but i feel we will probably miss out on brilliant PR stunts like this though

 

[Basic Bleach]

I liked her in that movie because despite being a caricature like everyone else she at least responded like a human being to the events happening around her.

Well yeah, she was the Winston expy.

Samhain, Cathulhu (that's how his name was written in the show and comics) and the Boogey Man from the cartoon along with the Spider Witch from the game and the giant Sloar (mentioned in the film and seen in the game and comics) would make fantastic villains in any new project. A shame they might not do that. They'll probably stick with rehashes of ghosts from the first film for nostalgia bucks, but any of those would be nice to see, but I don't have much faith in Sony since its always 50/50 with them.

But in the end, the game was the only true sequel/finale I ever needed.

Always wondered what exactly a Sloar was. Now I feel like I need to track the game down.

 

[Chester Rigby]

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.

Articles like this make me want a "LOL, fuck you" rating.

So, Scott Mendelson, LOL, fuck you.

 

[CatParty]

http://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/ghostbusters-culture-wars-and-the-reboot-cycle.php


'Ghostbusters', Culture Wars, and the Reboot Cycle


Nostalgia does strange things to the brain, but its status as the defining emotion by which our modern entertainment industry does business is an especially curious phenomenon to behold. We can complain all we want about how Hollywood never seems to make anything original these days but when the billion dollar diamonds of the box office are sequels, prequels, reboots and remakes, and Disney’s near shot-for-shot live-action recreations of their animated classics would give Gus Van Sant’s Psycho a run for its money, it’s tough to deny that we don’t always practice what we preach. If there’s a recognizable brand name or intellectual property that can be rebirthed for a new age and hopefully inspire a multi-film franchise, then you better believe that some studio executive is greenlighting it as we speak. So the news that yes, we’re getting another Ghostbusters movie wasn’t all that surprising. Director Jason Reitman, son of Ivan, was announced as the new man in charge, and this one will be the official third part of the original films. A 2020 release date has been tentatively set, and of course the internet erupted in a fit of rage over the prospect of their beloved original film being sullied by this latest addition, just like they did with the 2016 reboot… Yeah, I can’t even finish that joke with a straight face. Of course they didn’t. This one will probably be about men.

It remains fascinating that people keep trying to make Ghostbusters into its own cinematic universe because its batting average is suspect at best. The 1984 original film was a big hit in its day, becoming the 2nd highest grossing film of that year ahead of Gremlins and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. On top of that, it was ubiquitous in terms of merchandising and marketing. Remember, that song was nominated for an Oscar! For kids growing up in that era, the film and its accompanying animated series were inescapable parts of the pop culture landscape. There’s a reason the Stranger Things kids dress as Ghostbusters for Halloween in season 2. Nostalgia makes it all too easy to attach important parts of ourselves to fleeting fads or ethereal qualities. It’s not hard to see why so many young boys would connect to a story of outcasts who use their smarts to save the day.

The second film, however, was less successful. It made less money - and at a time when the blockbuster stakes were getting higher - and the reviews were decidedly mixed. Siskel and Ebert, like many critics of the time, noted how the sequel merely re-treated the first film, hitting the same story and character beats with little growth or reason to be. Even Bill Murray admitted he was disappointed in how the film became too focused on special effects over character and jokes. Ghostbusters 2 isn’t all that bad - it has a truly scary villain, a glorious display of camp from Peter MacNicol, and those effects are admittedly impressive - but its weird rewrite of the first movie so that it can repeat that film’s narrative regarding cynicism about ghosts drags things down considerably. A third film was discussed but left to languish in ‘what if’? territory for many years, in part due to Murray’s hesitance to sign on for more.

Ghostbusters is a high concept story that, in an abstract sense, should be a slam dunk with every iteration: Snarky geeks fight ghosts and save the world. You can swap in new teams, change the settings, maybe switch up the eras or genre stylings - Ghost fighting in space! Victorian ghost busting! - and explore various ideas of the supernatural. I truly thought we’d get that with the 2016 movie, but, well…

The Paul Feig movie is funnier than it gets credit for. It has all the upsides of that Judd Apatow style improv looseness but without the bagginess his films are typically hesitant to trim down. The cast have great chemistry (and Chris Hemsworth’s breakout performance as the goofball we always knew him to be was a genuine game changer for his career), there’s a nostalgic flair that isn’t wholly reliant on lifting elements from the original film, and there’s a sly message about toxic masculinity being the thing that will probably destroy the world. It never should have cost as much as it did but the central idea works and should have kickstarted a new era for this franchise. But we all know what happened.

Now, Ghostbusters is forever shrouded in reminders that its status as a nostalgic favourite was used as a convenient battering ram to attack women and exacerbate a misogynistic hate agenda rooted in right-wing extremism. Of all the things to set off a war against feminism in pop culture, it was a movie where women make jokes and bust ghosts. The film was accused of ‘ruining childhoods’, of pushing a radical feminist agenda, of erasing men from their own culture, and further notions that never made any sense. But they didn’t need to make sense. This hostility could have been sparked by any film, I’m sure. I don’t think Ghostbusters is all that important in the grand scheme of pop culture history, as funny as it is.

The problem is that now, whatever follows in the aftermath of the 2016 remake and everything that poisoned it will be viewed either as a U-turn on the part of the producers or a win for the hate groups that made this their cause. It didn’t stand a chance: Reddit and 4Chan groups targeted the film with organized downvote campaigns on sites like IMDb and YouTube, think-pieces were spewed out regarding how this was the film that ‘took feminism too far’, and star Leslie Jones was briefly driven off social media by a racist and sexist harassment campaign mounted by a self-serving bigoted narcissist who got famous by jumping on bandwagons dedicated to hate. And it worked for the bullies. Regardless of the context and how Hollywood actually works, the narrative will forever be that the Ghostbusters reboot failed because it starred women. They get to claim victory, even though there were so many other factors at play. Bullies will always find ways to twist a narrative to fit their preconceived notions of self-victimization, but in this instance, the media willingly followed suit, and that’s left a nasty stain on the discourse we’ll never truly get over.

And that makes getting excited for this new movie kind of hard for me. Regardless of Sony’s intent - and I don’t think it’s malicious because this sort of cold hard business decision seldom is - this reads like a reboot that will erase all memory of the 2016 film from the conversation. A movie that meant a lot to many people, that was loved by so many young girls, and one that was resilient enough to withstand such hate, will just be another studio oopsie, further proof that those damn women just don’t sell movies. Sony aren’t exclusively catering to those bullies but it can’t help but feel like that in some way, at least to me. It’s the quiet implication of, ‘Sorry, we screwed up, let’s try again’ that is hard to overcome, with the screwing up part being the mere existence of women. Why were those women excluded from the narrative of nostalgic silliness and joy?

 

[Fareal]

^apparently we all thought Chris Hemsworth was a serious and imposing actor and not capable of playing a goofball.

This was clearly written by someone who lives in a country where they don't show Home and Away, eh?

 

[breadandcircuses]

:late: I know, but I think the thing I remember most from Extreme Ghostbusters was when Egon got the old team back together.

Also, wasn't Roland voiced by Alonso Ribero? You know... Carlton?

 

[BrunoMattei]

http://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/ghostbusters-culture-wars-and-the-reboot-cycle.php


'Ghostbusters', Culture Wars, and the Reboot Cycle


Nostalgia does strange things to the brain, but its status as the defining emotion by which our modern entertainment industry does business is an especially curious phenomenon to behold. We can complain all we want about how Hollywood never seems to make anything original these days but when the billion dollar diamonds of the box office are sequels, prequels, reboots and remakes, and Disney’s near shot-for-shot live-action recreations of their animated classics would give Gus Van Sant’s Psycho a run for its money, it’s tough to deny that we don’t always practice what we preach. If there’s a recognizable brand name or intellectual property that can be rebirthed for a new age and hopefully inspire a multi-film franchise, then you better believe that some studio executive is greenlighting it as we speak. So the news that yes, we’re getting another Ghostbusters movie wasn’t all that surprising. Director Jason Reitman, son of Ivan, was announced as the new man in charge, and this one will be the official third part of the original films. A 2020 release date has been tentatively set, and of course the internet erupted in a fit of rage over the prospect of their beloved original film being sullied by this latest addition, just like they did with the 2016 reboot… Yeah, I can’t even finish that joke with a straight face. Of course they didn’t. This one will probably be about men.

It remains fascinating that people keep trying to make Ghostbusters into its own cinematic universe because its batting average is suspect at best. The 1984 original film was a big hit in its day, becoming the 2nd highest grossing film of that year ahead of Gremlins and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. On top of that, it was ubiquitous in terms of merchandising and marketing. Remember, that song was nominated for an Oscar! For kids growing up in that era, the film and its accompanying animated series were inescapable parts of the pop culture landscape. There’s a reason the Stranger Things kids dress as Ghostbusters for Halloween in season 2. Nostalgia makes it all too easy to attach important parts of ourselves to fleeting fads or ethereal qualities. It’s not hard to see why so many young boys would connect to a story of outcasts who use their smarts to save the day.

The second film, however, was less successful. It made less money - and at a time when the blockbuster stakes were getting higher - and the reviews were decidedly mixed. Siskel and Ebert, like many critics of the time, noted how the sequel merely re-treated the first film, hitting the same story and character beats with little growth or reason to be. Even Bill Murray admitted he was disappointed in how the film became too focused on special effects over character and jokes. Ghostbusters 2 isn’t all that bad - it has a truly scary villain, a glorious display of camp from Peter MacNicol, and those effects are admittedly impressive - but its weird rewrite of the first movie so that it can repeat that film’s narrative regarding cynicism about ghosts drags things down considerably. A third film was discussed but left to languish in ‘what if’? territory for many years, in part due to Murray’s hesitance to sign on for more.

Ghostbusters is a high concept story that, in an abstract sense, should be a slam dunk with every iteration: Snarky geeks fight ghosts and save the world. You can swap in new teams, change the settings, maybe switch up the eras or genre stylings - Ghost fighting in space! Victorian ghost busting! - and explore various ideas of the supernatural. I truly thought we’d get that with the 2016 movie, but, well…

The Paul Feig movie is funnier than it gets credit for. It has all the upsides of that Judd Apatow style improv looseness but without the bagginess his films are typically hesitant to trim down. The cast have great chemistry (and Chris Hemsworth’s breakout performance as the goofball we always knew him to be was a genuine game changer for his career), there’s a nostalgic flair that isn’t wholly reliant on lifting elements from the original film, and there’s a sly message about toxic masculinity being the thing that will probably destroy the world. It never should have cost as much as it did but the central idea works and should have kickstarted a new era for this franchise. But we all know what happened.

Now, Ghostbusters is forever shrouded in reminders that its status as a nostalgic favourite was used as a convenient battering ram to attack women and exacerbate a misogynistic hate agenda rooted in right-wing extremism. Of all the things to set off a war against feminism in pop culture, it was a movie where women make jokes and bust ghosts. The film was accused of ‘ruining childhoods’, of pushing a radical feminist agenda, of erasing men from their own culture, and further notions that never made any sense. But they didn’t need to make sense. This hostility could have been sparked by any film, I’m sure. I don’t think Ghostbusters is all that important in the grand scheme of pop culture history, as funny as it is.

The problem is that now, whatever follows in the aftermath of the 2016 remake and everything that poisoned it will be viewed either as a U-turn on the part of the producers or a win for the hate groups that made this their cause. It didn’t stand a chance: Reddit and 4Chan groups targeted the film with organized downvote campaigns on sites like IMDb and YouTube, think-pieces were spewed out regarding how this was the film that ‘took feminism too far’, and star Leslie Jones was briefly driven off social media by a racist and sexist harassment campaign mounted by a self-serving bigoted narcissist who got famous by jumping on bandwagons dedicated to hate. And it worked for the bullies. Regardless of the context and how Hollywood actually works, the narrative will forever be that the Ghostbusters reboot failed because it starred women. They get to claim victory, even though there were so many other factors at play. Bullies will always find ways to twist a narrative to fit their preconceived notions of self-victimization, but in this instance, the media willingly followed suit, and that’s left a nasty stain on the discourse we’ll never truly get over.

And that makes getting excited for this new movie kind of hard for me. Regardless of Sony’s intent - and I don’t think it’s malicious because this sort of cold hard business decision seldom is - this reads like a reboot that will erase all memory of the 2016 film from the conversation. A movie that meant a lot to many people, that was loved by so many young girls, and one that was resilient enough to withstand such hate, will just be another studio oopsie, further proof that those damn women just don’t sell movies. Sony aren’t exclusively catering to those bullies but it can’t help but feel like that in some way, at least to me. It’s the quiet implication of, ‘Sorry, we screwed up, let’s try again’ that is hard to overcome, with the screwing up part being the mere existence of women. Why were those women excluded from the narrative of nostalgic silliness and joy?

You gotta' quote that shit, man. Use QUOTE or the classic " " will suffice. I was just about to hit the Autistic rating but then I noticed the text wall is from the article.

 

[Chester Rigby]

You gotta' quote that shit, man. Use QUOTE or the classic " " will suffice. I was just about to hit the Autistic rating but then I noticed the text wall is from the article.

I believe he does that in order to give us the full article and not fall for the clickbait.

 

[BrunoMattei]

I believe he does that in order to give us the full article and not fall for the clickbait.

You still have to quote it. Just use the brackets.

Example.