As you've no doubt heard, the all-female "Ghostbusters" reboot, is going full steam ahead, with Director, Paul Feig, confirming the main cast recently via Twitter. The cast so far consists of 'Bridemaids' actresses, Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, and 'Saturday Night Live' comediennes, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, and whilst a large proportion of people seem to be excited about this news, I'd like to point out three reasons why it's perfectly okay, NOT to be okay with this.
Ghostbusters is a classic, why ruin it?
Despite the first film coming out a full 10 years before I was born, I, like many, can appreciate that the Ghostbusters movies, like a lot of 80's movies, are classics. They're not films that warrant re-makes and re-boots, they're not films that you want to see re-made and modernized. There's a special element to these films, that comes from the writing and humour - indicitive to the 80's, the cast and overall look of those films. They have that special little something that makes them classic - you don't forgot those films after you watch them, and 10, 20 maybe even 30 years down the line, you know you wont forget it, so why ruin that by rebooting it?
When has a re-boot ever been better than the original? So much better, that you find yourself admiring and praising the re-boot over the original?
Exactly, Harry. Exactly.
Why an all-female cast? Because "Feminism".
Before I begin, let me first state, that I identify as a Feminist. Fully and wholeheartedly.
Now let me give you the definition of Feminism.
Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of the equality of the sexes.
Equality. Now you'll notice, that I put Feminism in inverted commas above Zooey Deschanel's head, and there's a reason for that.
I don't equate equality of the sexes, to mean that female actresses get male actors' old cast offs. i.e Ghostbusters - a film starring four men does not need to be re-booted with four women in the name of or with the excuse of "Feminism"/"Equality", because that in and of itself is NOT Equality.
By re-booting a movie that originally had a predominatly male cast, and giving it an all female cast and praising that fact as though it is a good thing - you're essentially saying that the only way women can be represented equally in film, is to take on the roles that male actors have "cast aside".
Think Angelina Jolie in Salt - the role was originally written for a male actor, Tom Cruise to be specific, but when he wasn't able to star in the movie, they cast Jolie and re-wrote the part around her. But why wasn't she good enough to be considered in the first place? There's no doubt about it, she slayed that role, and was brilliant in the film, but why did she have to wait for a male actor to turn it down, before getting a look in?
Because Action Movies and Sci-Fi Movies are Male Dominated.
Does this then mean that the only way to balance the scales, is to give women roles that men turn down, and re-boot male dominated movies with women in the lead?
No, no it does not. You are not doing women any favours, by giving us old cast-offs. You want to make a movie with a predominantly female cast reminiscent of Ghostbusters?
Go ahead - create an original story, take inspiration from Ghostbusters but don't copy it, give these women their own film - one that belongs to them, and isn't a "hand me down".
I know a lot of people think this all-female Ghostbusters Re-boot is a good idea. That it's a win somehow for women in film, but forgive me if I don't see it that way.
Kind of like that "The Expendabelles" planned spin-off going round, about an all-female Expendables movie, after two succesful male ones. I mean there's another cast off that women are supposed to be happy we're getting, when in reality, it's just another cast off. And then there's the stupid name but that's an issue for another time.
It's unecessary to re-boot Ghosbusters.
Now this last point, is a somewhat shaky point, as you could easily counter point me and say, "Is any movie really necessary?" and you'd be right. Film is after all an Entertainment buisness primarily - yes you have films that have a message etc, but ultimately they exist to entertain and captivate audiences. They exist as an escape from the real world.
Having said that: I have ZERO desire to "escape" into the world of a Ghostbusters re-boot. Regardless of the cast - they could be men, women, children (that might actually be cool, kind of like "Bugsy Malone"), cats or dogs - I have no wish to see the world of Ghostbusters ruined by a re-boot. It's unnecessary. I don't know that there was ever a demand for this movie to be re-made - a slight interest perhaps, but not a demand - it just sort of happened and people either went "Yay" or "Nay".
Does anyone actually having a pressing need to see this happen? Is anyone as excited for this movie as you would be for, let's say "Age of Ultron"? Or "Batman V Superman"? Does anyone feel like this movie is relevant and feels actual joy at the prospect of this movie? Because I'm sorry, but I really don't. It just feels all kinds of unnecessary to me, and I have zero interest in seeing it.
Of course, all of what I've said above could change the second a trailer is dropped, and if that happens, I will take back everything I said in this article.
But for the meantime, this Ghostbusters re-boot can go suck a lemon.
If I find myself in a spot of trouble, I know exactly who I'm gonna call.
Look at those Legends!