They wore some impressive looking proton pack replicas and other pseudo-scientific ghost catching equipment. One guy even had a fake cigarette hanging from his lip like Ray Stanz (Dan Aykroyd) did in the hotel scene from the 1984 movie.
While talking to these fans, I asked a question some geeks are afraid to answer.
"So, what did you think of the 2016 movie?"
I could tell by the way they looked at each other that they just didn't want to venture into these unnecessarily "dangerous" waters. It was the question not to be asked.
If they liked it, then some will deem them not-so-true fans of the franchise.
If they hated it, then someone will label them sexist. There's just no winning.
So, I broke the ice and said "I mean, it wasn't great but it has some good things going for it."
And some seemed to sincerely agree. The rest of them reluctantly did the same.
It's no revelation that the movie which is often referred to as the "female Ghostbusters" wasn't great.
And this lack of greatness started with the initial advertising. It went through online bickering between cast, director Paul Feig, and fans with name-calling via Twitter coming from both sides.
Feig called a lot of Ghostbuster fans "trash" and "trolls" among other things for expressing their opinions and disappointment towards his version of Ghostbusters. This was both before and after the movie's release.
Talk about counter-productivity. Trying to appeal to a fanbase while bashing that same fanbase will surely result in some severe criticism.
I think it's a safe assumption that after years of talks about a third movie, audiences generally didn't want to see a remake. Still, remakes are as old as Hollywood itself. They're anything but a new concept.
I think it's a safe assumption that after years of talks about a third movie, audiences generally didn't want to see a remake. Still, remakes are as old as Hollywood itself. They're anything but a new concept.
The movie was just so poorly introduced and promoted. The first trailer led fans to believe the remake was actually a part of the original films. That trailer referenced "four scientists" who "saved New York...30 years ago." It even had a clip of the famous fire house which served as the Ghostbusters headquarters. The attention of Ghostbusters fans perked up, only to lead to disappointment heard around the internet. 
Rumors of a third sequel floated around since Ghostbusters II came out in 1989. And this wasn't going to be it. A remake! The disappointment is justifiable. You can't tease fans like that, and then belittle them for not appreciating it.
So, hate towards 2016's Ghostbusters continues to linger.
Putting all that aside, is the movie really bad? Well, yeah. It's not great. But when I saw it during the summer of that year, I had fun watching it. Just like other movies directed by Paul Feig...well, Bridesmaids is the only other movie of his I recall seeing, his Ghostbusters was an alright popcorn movie. I got my matinee price's worth of laughs. I think it does have some great qualities.
To begin with, the casting is well done.
I appreciate the fact that, like the original, the actors (Kristin Wiig, Leslie Jones, Melissa McCarthy - she wasn't necessarily an SNL cast member, but she has been on the show - and especially Kate McKinnon) playing the new Ghostbusters were cast members on Saturday Night Live.
McKinnon helped sell the movie for me. Her comedy and timing, in my opinion, is hilarious. She's fantastic on SNL, and she was entertaining in Ghostbusters.
All together, it was a rather solid cast who played well off each other.
Another aspect I love is the pseudo-science.
In the move, McKinnon plays the Egon Spengler-esque (Egon being the brains behind the Ghostbusters in the 1984 movie, played by the late Harold Ramis) character, Jillian Holtzmann, whose scientific expertise leads to some faux scientifical gadgetry designed specifically to captures ghosts.
In the original movie, the Ghostbusters's gadgets were limited to a ghost trap, some proton packs, and a storage unit. Their proton packs were basically sticks they pointed and shot. That was really about it. It was an awesome special effects show, don't get me wrong. Still, the 2016 Ghostbusters offered more than pointing sticks.
Despite a story I consider sloppy and in need to reworking, I still think most of the jokes played out well. 
One particular scene that still makes me laugh is when the Ghostbusters encounter their first ghost at the Aldridge Mansion. The story behind the mansion is that Sir Aldridge locked his oldest daughter in the cellar to avoid embarrassment after she murdered the home's staff. Her ghost haunts the mansion, which is the Ghostbusters first paranormal investigation.
When she manifests herself to them, both Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) and Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) are trying to maintain their composure as the malicious looking specter stares them down. Next to them, Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) just says "hi" with a smile on her face as she munches on a can of Pringles, treating the experience like she's in it for the entertainment. McKinnon is just a natural comedian, and I particularly love her in this movie.
So, while 2016's Ghostbusters remake is still the subject of hate and criticism, and much of it widely
deserved for its poor storyline, it still has something movie fans can take away from it. It's just a shame the movie wasn't produced and written better. Perhaps if things had gotten off on a better foot, and some revisions had been made, well...it may have been better received.
Ghostbusters has a fun factor, and it accomplishes what it set out to do. Entertain. At least it got that right.
No comments:
Post a Comment