As the entire internet knows, a remake of Ghostbusters is set to come out in 2016, but so far I've met very few pleased with the decision. Sure, we all should give the movie a chance, however, so many variables are lining it up to be an artistic failure. Let's take a look at why.
5.) It's a Remake
Now, I'm not going to spout off about remakes being evil, because I genuinely love plenty of remakes. Scorsese's Cape Fear was a masterpiece, The Birdcage was a remake of a French film and I was glad to see the reimagining of When a Stranger calls. Remakes allow us to put proper polish on concepts that deserve to be revisited. The problem is also the inherent risk that the polish accomplishes nothing new. In fact, if the original was essentially flawless, like with Ghostbusters, the remake runs the risk of being sub-par to something that came out decades earlier, which is just sad. For instance, the Poltergeist remake only added visual polish. The characters were just as strong as the original and the visual effects were reasonably cool, but it failed by rushing the plot and swapping out original scares with knock-offs. Do we have any reason to believe the new [Ghostbusters (2016)](tag:32733) has anything special to bring to the table?
4.) Paul Feig is Directing
Do yourself a favor and look at his IMDb page. What you'll see is little more than TV credits up until recently, and it's more of him being a guest director for random episodes. We really don't know of his conceptual talent other than Bridesmaids, The Heat and really just being Melissa McCarthy's chum. Really, we have no reason to believe the style is going to be anything other than the usual tone the two of them bring - which would be raunchy. Feig may be able to pull off a properly dark tone for the film, but we have not proof he can, which is essential when dealing with such a time-honored property. Ultimately, I think Heavyweights is his masterpiece.
3.) Development Limbo
I've been hearing about this project since 2008, placing it in the development limbo category. Michael Cera turned the idea down before the gender-bender decision, stating he had too much respect for the original, it'd be "dangerous to touch" and the shoes just wouldn't fit. People still insisted on it through 2013 and he's remained steadfast about staying out. Bill Murray has also turned down endless Ghostbusters 3 scripts because he felt it would be like a "Godfather 3," the final and lackluster chapter to a great premise and amazing characters. Most scripts were made just for the sake of making another and got too crazy. He's open to doing a cameo in the reboot if it's original enough, but most are counting all the original members out. Anna Faris was once loosely attached to it, as were Bill Hader and Will Forte. It's really mostly rumors and conjecture when looking back, but it has been tossed around for over a decade. That's rarely a good sign in terms of reboots, but often creates at least mixed-to-good results with sequels. In short, it'd have better odds as a Ghostbusters 3 than a reboot, because at least the content would be fresher, just to reiterate reason number 5.
2.) Gender-Bender Marketing is All We've Been Given
What is the one thing we all know about this movie? It's a gender-bender...and that's it. Don't get me wrong, if the nature of the script calls for an all-female cast, that's dandy, but I'm under the impression their one "inspired" idea was to make the cast all-female and base the script around that. Do they have anything else going for them other than the buzz/controversy the gender change creates? It can create a fun dynamic if done right, but the dream dynamic for me would involve more of a mixed cast, which even Ernie Hudson has stated would be better than the current cast. But seriously, why am I even talking so much about the gender issue? Simply, it's all we've been given. Where are comments on the tone, the ghosts, the plot, the setting? We have nothing. A trailer would mean so much more than nebulous pictures of the new cast. Give me a picture of the new Slimer already!
1.) Every Character is a Replacement
That's right - it's a knockoff at every level. Rather than developing brand new characters as a whole, they've intentionally taken the mold and slapped new faces into previously existing roles. That means we're expecting the new cast to replace the old, not be new characters. McCarthy is obviously filling Murray's shoes while Leslie Jones is filling in for Ernie Hudson, Kristin Wiig strikes me as filling in for Harold Ramis and Kate McKinnon for Dan Aykroyd. That and Chris Hemsworth is the receptionist. It's all so copy-and-paste. That kind of thing can succeed when you have a renowned and capable director, producer, cast and crew at the helm, such as Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale with Batman, which people were hesitant about to begin with. Filling established roles is sticky business. All I see is Feig trying to change the dynamic, then cram it back into the old mold. The guy really should pick one or the other.
Despite all the negativity I've belted out, I wish everyone involved the best. If they can prove me wrong and make a great movie, perfect. That's all anyone wants: quality material.