Ghostbusters 2016. No Review. I refuse.
So, there's a new Ghostbusters movie coming out,
and, for something related to one of my favorite franchises, it may be expected that I review it,
but instead of a review, for once, I'm doin' somethin' a little different: A non-review, because I refuse to watch it. (Laughs) I'll tell you why. The original, which we now have to call the
1984 Ghostbusters, is a timeless classic. It's one of the greatest comedies ever made.
But this one, judging from the trailers,
it looks awful. So, instead of doing what everybody else is gonna do,
go see the movie, and then talk about how bad it is, I'm gonna do something different.
Something unheard of! I'm not gonna see it! Wow! What a novel concept, right? If you already know you're going to hate it,
why give them your money? If this is the Ghostbusters movie that nobody wanted,
then the box office results should reflect that. But, I don't think it is. Maybe the actual movie is better than the trailer.
Maybe it's good. It's a possibility. I know I'm biased; Ghostbusters is something that
a lot of us grew up with, and we wanted to see the original cast back together
for one last time while they were still alive, and then maybe introduce a new, younger cast,
work them in, win us over, and then pass it on for a new generation. But the path to Ghostbusters III had so many detours,
and got kicked around so badly, that it eventually died out completely.
To me, personally, it officially ended
with the death of Harold Ramis. They had all that time, and NOW
a new Ghostbusters movie finally gets made, as if now, it's appropriate? Well, at least he didn't live to see this shit. My problem I have with the movie, it's not the fact
that it looks bad. I mean, sure, the jokes
in the trailer make you cringe.
The ghost effects are on par
with the live-action Scooby-Doo, or Disney's Haunted Mansion.
You know, the one with Eddie Murphy. It looks embarrassing when you compare it to
the original that was made 30 years ago, and that still holds up; the effects in that movie
are still amazing after all this time. So, it looks bad. Fine, I watch a lot of bad movies.
(Laughs) You know, I see a ton of bad movies knowingly,
and with pleasure. But this isn't just any movie.
This is Ghostbusters. It's one of the most celebrated franchises ever. The real problem I have with it is the title.
Calling it Ghostbusters, but without having any
connection to the original story or characters, is a shameless attempt to bank on the name,
to get fans to see it based on the title alone. At the same time, it takes advantage of the
younger generations who might not have even seen the original. They'll see it without feeling like there is any
prerequisite of having to see the other movies. And now, whenever you look up the original movie,
you're always gonna see "Ghostbusters 1984" and "Ghostbusters 2016".
It's piggybacking on the name. And maybe that's not the intention, but call it
"Ghostbusters: The Next Generation", or "Ghostbusters: Re-Energized". Anything stupid like
that would've been better. Because, you know what everybody's been calling it? The Female Ghostbusters.
I hear that all the time. "The Female Ghostbusters". Does that mean we have to call the old one
"The Male Ghostbusters"? It doesn't matter, but I can't blame everybody for
identifying it that way, because there's no other way to identify the movies.
There's no other name for it; it's just "Ghostbusters". And, I know the term "remake" has gone out of fashion,
but I feel like it is a remake, because...
Now everybody says "reboot", but, I don't care. To me, by definition, a remake is when you make a movie called Ghostbusters, then, you make another movie called Ghostbusters. You made another Ghostbusters. You remade it.
It's a remake.
Of course, that doesn't mean it's a remake of the same
story. It's different. But by using the name, it's pretending to be original
in its own right, and sweeping the first one under the rug,
as if it didn't happen. As if, you know, it's not based on anything pre-existing.
And maybe that wasn't the intention, but...
That's why we need a new term, and I call it a "namemake". It's a namemake. Now wait, I don't wanna sound too biased here,
because this particular franchise does have a very odd exception. Ghostbusters itself was a namemake in its own way;
there was a 1975 TV series called The Ghost Busters, which was made into an animated series in 1986, after the success of the 1984 film
that we all know and love.
But, I don't understand, if this new film wants to be a
reboot, then why couldn't it take note from all the successful reboots that came before? Like Star Trek, you have a younger cast,
but you also have it rooted in the lore of the original series. You have Leonard Nimoy playing an old Spock,
passing the torch to a younger Spock. Or, how about Star Wars? It's a sequel,
but it's also a reboot. It reboots the franchise by introducing new characters
and starting a new adventure, but it doesn't forget about the old characters.
A little fanservice goes a long way.
When Chewie and Han Solo step onto the
Millennium Falcon for the first time in over 30 years, and Han says, "Chewie, we're home.",
That's all you need. It makes us feel like WE went home,
back to our childhoods. It's as simple as that.
That's how you do a reboot. But this flushes all that opportunity
down the shitter.
Without Harold Ramis, is it possible for any reboot
like this to happen? Um... Maybe, but you wouldn't have to get...
You know, you would have to get
the other three Ghostbusters there, plus Sigourney Weaver, plus Rick Moranis,
plus Annie Potts... Anybody you can get who's still alive,
you should still get 'em. And then really try to win us over with the new cast.
But instead, the original Ghostbusters are supposedly
playing cameo roles. But not as... Their characters. Like, what the fuck? How did this thing get so misguided? It's amazing when you look back at all the false starts
of Ghostbusters III, and how after all that, they ended up with this.
Well, check in next time, and I'll fully illustrate this
disaster by examining the history of Ghostbusters III, and see how it ended up at this spot where it is. Yep, Ghostbusters III... The film that may rest in peace..
and, for something related to one of my favorite franchises, it may be expected that I review it,
but instead of a review, for once, I'm doin' somethin' a little different: A non-review, because I refuse to watch it. (Laughs) I'll tell you why. The original, which we now have to call the
1984 Ghostbusters, is a timeless classic. It's one of the greatest comedies ever made.
But this one, judging from the trailers,
it looks awful. So, instead of doing what everybody else is gonna do,
go see the movie, and then talk about how bad it is, I'm gonna do something different.
Something unheard of! I'm not gonna see it! Wow! What a novel concept, right? If you already know you're going to hate it,
why give them your money? If this is the Ghostbusters movie that nobody wanted,
then the box office results should reflect that. But, I don't think it is. Maybe the actual movie is better than the trailer.
Maybe it's good. It's a possibility. I know I'm biased; Ghostbusters is something that
a lot of us grew up with, and we wanted to see the original cast back together
for one last time while they were still alive, and then maybe introduce a new, younger cast,
work them in, win us over, and then pass it on for a new generation. But the path to Ghostbusters III had so many detours,
and got kicked around so badly, that it eventually died out completely.
To me, personally, it officially ended
with the death of Harold Ramis. They had all that time, and NOW
a new Ghostbusters movie finally gets made, as if now, it's appropriate? Well, at least he didn't live to see this shit. My problem I have with the movie, it's not the fact
that it looks bad. I mean, sure, the jokes
in the trailer make you cringe.
The ghost effects are on par
with the live-action Scooby-Doo, or Disney's Haunted Mansion.
You know, the one with Eddie Murphy. It looks embarrassing when you compare it to
the original that was made 30 years ago, and that still holds up; the effects in that movie
are still amazing after all this time. So, it looks bad. Fine, I watch a lot of bad movies.
(Laughs) You know, I see a ton of bad movies knowingly,
and with pleasure. But this isn't just any movie.
This is Ghostbusters. It's one of the most celebrated franchises ever. The real problem I have with it is the title.
Calling it Ghostbusters, but without having any
connection to the original story or characters, is a shameless attempt to bank on the name,
to get fans to see it based on the title alone. At the same time, it takes advantage of the
younger generations who might not have even seen the original. They'll see it without feeling like there is any
prerequisite of having to see the other movies. And now, whenever you look up the original movie,
you're always gonna see "Ghostbusters 1984" and "Ghostbusters 2016".
It's piggybacking on the name. And maybe that's not the intention, but call it
"Ghostbusters: The Next Generation", or "Ghostbusters: Re-Energized". Anything stupid like
that would've been better. Because, you know what everybody's been calling it? The Female Ghostbusters.
I hear that all the time. "The Female Ghostbusters". Does that mean we have to call the old one
"The Male Ghostbusters"? It doesn't matter, but I can't blame everybody for
identifying it that way, because there's no other way to identify the movies.
There's no other name for it; it's just "Ghostbusters". And, I know the term "remake" has gone out of fashion,
but I feel like it is a remake, because...
Now everybody says "reboot", but, I don't care. To me, by definition, a remake is when you make a movie called Ghostbusters, then, you make another movie called Ghostbusters. You made another Ghostbusters. You remade it.
It's a remake.
Of course, that doesn't mean it's a remake of the same
story. It's different. But by using the name, it's pretending to be original
in its own right, and sweeping the first one under the rug,
as if it didn't happen. As if, you know, it's not based on anything pre-existing.
And maybe that wasn't the intention, but...
That's why we need a new term, and I call it a "namemake". It's a namemake. Now wait, I don't wanna sound too biased here,
because this particular franchise does have a very odd exception. Ghostbusters itself was a namemake in its own way;
there was a 1975 TV series called The Ghost Busters, which was made into an animated series in 1986, after the success of the 1984 film
that we all know and love.
But, I don't understand, if this new film wants to be a
reboot, then why couldn't it take note from all the successful reboots that came before? Like Star Trek, you have a younger cast,
but you also have it rooted in the lore of the original series. You have Leonard Nimoy playing an old Spock,
passing the torch to a younger Spock. Or, how about Star Wars? It's a sequel,
but it's also a reboot. It reboots the franchise by introducing new characters
and starting a new adventure, but it doesn't forget about the old characters.
A little fanservice goes a long way.
When Chewie and Han Solo step onto the
Millennium Falcon for the first time in over 30 years, and Han says, "Chewie, we're home.",
That's all you need. It makes us feel like WE went home,
back to our childhoods. It's as simple as that.
That's how you do a reboot. But this flushes all that opportunity
down the shitter.
Without Harold Ramis, is it possible for any reboot
like this to happen? Um... Maybe, but you wouldn't have to get...
You know, you would have to get
the other three Ghostbusters there, plus Sigourney Weaver, plus Rick Moranis,
plus Annie Potts... Anybody you can get who's still alive,
you should still get 'em. And then really try to win us over with the new cast.
But instead, the original Ghostbusters are supposedly
playing cameo roles. But not as... Their characters. Like, what the fuck? How did this thing get so misguided? It's amazing when you look back at all the false starts
of Ghostbusters III, and how after all that, they ended up with this.
Well, check in next time, and I'll fully illustrate this
disaster by examining the history of Ghostbusters III, and see how it ended up at this spot where it is. Yep, Ghostbusters III... The film that may rest in peace..
Comments
Post a Comment