Absolutely agree with Richard. Some people (Sony included) vastly underestimate just how popular and iconic GB is to a lot of people. Thats the reason there was such an overwhelming backlash to a remake on the first place. I dont think too many people would be upset over a Independence Day remake beyond rolling their eyes at yet another remake. For me GB has always had the same stature as the likes of Indiana Jones and Back To The Future.
You understand though that they were reacting that way because they were in the originals? If they acted like that based on silly cameos, imagine what the reaction would’ve been like had they been playing the real thing. Just imagine. It would’ve been glorious.
The actors ARE the real thing. 
And it WAS glorious in my theater.
It’s been generally accepted that Jurassic World was a soft reboot of the franchise. As pointed out before, like The Incredible Hulk, there’s enough there for those who saw and enjoyed the preceding three films, but also enough that you still get the story even if you haven’t seen what came before: there was a dinosaur park, things went wrong, and in the eternal process that is human logic and sheer bloody-mindedness, they’ve redone it thinking “this time, it’ll be different”.
I’m actually glad I didn’t see Murray or Aykroyd attempting to don the old uniforms and strap on the Packs again.
I’m glad because even at it’s best, it would’ve been a shadow of it’s former self without Harold to complete the quartet, and with the exception of Ernie, neither Bill nor Dan really looks in the sort of physical state to still be a Ghostbuster.
So instead of getting a new film where the boys in grey are mostly past their prime, I get to retain the image in my mind’s eye of the four original Ghostbusters still being youthful and able to run around chasing and busting ghosts.
The hype was huge, but there’s no guarantee that had “GB3” ever happened, it would’ve been the success a lot of people have stated it would’ve been. To be honest, I think it would’ve been a bit of a let down, a different let down to the type a lot of people state the reboot was, but a let down none-the-less.
There’s nothing great about seeing some of your heroes up on blocks, getting too old and podgy to do anything other than play the role of mentor.
I think “GB3” could’ve ended up being like Resurgence or Crystal Skull, or even A Good Day to Die Hard.
It hasn’t aged that badly. Sure, some of the practical effects do look a little dated now, but a good few others (like the battles between the aliens and the humans) still hold up pretty well, and there are some other films out there which are deemed pure-breed classics who have effects and other elements that have also dated a little (Gone with the Wind, Jaws, E.T., Back to the Future and so on).
It isn’t Smith on his own that Independence Day is as fondly remembered by my brothers and I, it’s his banter and interaction with Goldblum when the two characters were put together that left the lasting impression, and that’s one of the things so sorely missing from Resurgence.
Some NSFW Language
This about sums up how I feel Sony screwed it up.
It’s a direct sequel. There is no middle ground on this. New characters? Yes. But a reboot? Hell no.
Of course there’s middle ground. It’s Hollywood trying to have it both ways. And they get away with it because audiences eagerly grab at those tiny scraps of nostalgia. The “callbacks” to the first film are barely there. And the plot doesn’t continue ANYTHING about the story. It literally just tells the story over again. That’s not a sequel.
It’s not a crime or anything. Just saying it’s not all that unusual to re-tell a classic story.
Many older classic films have indeed been remade and the world didn’t end. Heck, a lot of them have fans, mainly because they have no interest in watching movies made before the 80s.
I’m not the guy you were replying to, but I feel like you’re misrepresenting Jurassic World, albeit unintentionally.
While it’s absolutely true that World can stand on its own, the callbacks were hardly “barely there.” Vehicles and locations from the original film play a prominent role in the plot and survival of several main characters. The entire legacy of the new park is steeped in the history of the original film. According to the director, the T-Rex in the film is the same as featured in the original. World may be artfully written to stand on its own, but one would have to be wearing blinders to argue that it doesn’t qualify as a real sequel. Is the original necessary viewing? No, but that doesn’t make it not a sequel. That makes it well made sequel. It would be equally absurd to argue that The Force Awakens is a “reboot” instead of a continuation.
To get a little more pedantic, would you argue that Deep Space Nine is a reboot of Star Trek: The Next Generation? Or is TNG a reboot of the original TV series? If so, I think we’re using the term “reboot” too loosely.
Ghostbusters: ATC is a clear reboot – using the franchise to tell stories unrelated to the franchise’ origin. I’m not arguing that you should like or dislike that, but that’s a very different thing than what these other films we’ve been talking about did.
Ultimately, that definition is irrelevant to this conversation in the first place. The thread is asking if we thought Sony screwed up – that subjective answer does not require an agreement on terms like “reboot” or “sequel,” and could have equally been applied if it was a “proper” Ghostbusters 3.
The real question we should ask is how we defined screwed up. For me, that’s this:
**
Did Sony make the best version of this movie they could have made? **
To me, that answer is no. The chemistry just wasn’t there for me, and none of the characters (save for Jones’ surprise performance) felt authentic – like real people that I believed existed. The villain was as nonthreatening and uncompelling as a Marvel villain. Forget the jokes and how I felt about them, forget the effects and ideals and cameos: the movie just didn’t build a world that felt believable to me. A few cast tweaks and a couple more script revisions might have changed that.
I can’t say it better than I did earlier than in this thread. It felt like the* Dukes of Hazzard* movie to me – it did a few fun things, but ultimately failed to capture what made me like the original. By that estimation, i’d say sony “screwed up.”
Deep Space Nine very much continues several plot points from TNG, right from the beginning. And it stakes its own territory along the way. That’s a sequel. Whereas Jurassic World just does the same “Hubris Park kills people” plot all over again. That’s a reboot.
Unrelated? On the contrary! GB16 actually made an effort with its callbacks and cameos. You familiar with the expression “brother from another mother”? That’s kind of how I see GB16. As a fan, I felt a true resonance when Abby was using the P.K.E Meter or wearing the helmet, or when Holtzmann is hawking junk food, lol. Heck, even the fact that we’re meant to call her Holtzmann rather than her first name goes along with the Ghostbusters tradition! The kind of touches I can easily picture most writers/directors missing entirely. Except they didn’t here. And just the characters themselves–Scientists (“Um, and Patty!”*) facing ridicule from the establishment. The very essence of Ghostbusters! And I could recognize it, without needing to be told, “It’s canon!”
*Btw, that line is yet another connection to the originals, how the non-scientist awkwardly ends up the outsider. They knew that would resonant with Winston supporters.
1 Like
This doesn’t in any way make Jurassic Park not a sequel. It just makes it a sequel that follows the same beats and themes as the original. It makes it a less original sequel, but it’s still very clearly tied into the original universe. This allows it to appeal to a new audience while still being a sequel tickles all the nostalgic needs of the previous film’s fans.
Those are callbacks – but it’s still telling a **story **unrelated to the franchise’s origin. The story of the new film is thematically rooted in, but wholly unrelated in a narrative sense to the original. This is what makes it a reboot and not a sequel. It doesn’t even have a cursory narrative tie to the original. It’s completely removed in a story sense. The story’s can not connect, by design. It’s true, you’re noticing carefully placed nostalgic callbacks, but they’re not connected to the original in any tangible way.
That’s an objective answer of “does this qualify as a sequel,” however, and I get that’s not what you’re saying – but that’s the original point I was making. To address your point more directly, i’m going to sort of cut up what you said, to make this representative statement of your argument:
(Emphasis added on meaningful)
It’s perfectly fine that you feel that way – but know that it’s extremely subjective. This works for you (and again, that’s great!) but it doesn’t work for me. Without a narrative hook connecting them, many of these elements didn’t resonate for me. Instead, they stood out as callbacks designed to remind me of something else without a direct relation. This doesn’t make them inherently bad, but from my own subjective perspective, they failed to make me connect the two movies in a meaningful way.
Again though, that’s super subjective. I’m a big story nerd, and it bothers me that the narratives are disconnected in ways that won’t bother other viewers at all. It makes things seem “out of place” to me that might seem like an awesome reference to another. I don’t agree with you, but I don’t have the ability or desire to invalidate your enjoyment. To go back to Dukes of Hazzrad, I thought it was a great driving film, but a terrible representation of the Dukes’ characters – but my brother loved it wholesale. I think he’s incredibly wrong, but that’s okay. He can like it if he wants.
Anyway. I was speaking more generally about what a reboot and a sequel is. I think Jurassic World easily qualifies as the latter, at least from a narrative standpoint – but Dukes and ATC clearly fall more into the reboot territory.
At the end of the day, I kind of wish GB2016 took the Abrams Star Trek approach – it’s truly both. It’s a full reboot that breaks all the rules of the original universe, but it has a narrative hook that still ties it into the originals. Creating it as “The Kelvin Timeline” made me accept it in a way I might not have. I might have been annoyed that everything about Starfleet was suddenly different, but the writers baked in a narrative excuse that I could accept. I don’t like all the changes I made, but they made it fit in the box of what “Star Trek” is to me well enough that I shrug it off more than I do with other reboots. I don’t know what form that could have taken with Ghostbusters, however.
Regardless, I think we can all agree that the art of writing a reboot is fragile. It’s extremely difficult to appeal to the nostalgic hooks of old fans, while still creating something that will appeal to new audiences. It’s rare to satisfy one without alienating the other. I can only think of three movies that have really done it well – New Star Trek, Jurassic World, and Force Awakens. … and TWO of those basically carbon copy stories from original films for a “safe” intro to the reboot.
I donno, it’s a big subject. Maybe I should make a YouTube video about it or something.
EDIT: fixed a ton of quote bracket errors
Going back to my analogy, and correct me if I’m wrong, you need for both brothers to be related by birth. I’m saying family is deeper than DNA.
IMO, Abrams Trek had none of the essence of Star Trek. I don’t care how much they connected things, the themes and execution completely missed the point of the franchise. GB16 was far closer to the essence of its origins. As a Trekkie, I disown my biological brother, Abrams Trek, lol. But as a Ghosthead, I am more than happy to embrace my adoptive brother, GB16.
But thank you for the discussion, a YouTube video would be interesting!
To be honest, your analogy confuses things for me, so I discarded it. Sorry.
It depends on the film. Maybe they would have resonated with me better if I liked the characters more? It’s really hard to say. The lack of resonation with callbacks isn’t why I didn’t like the movie, it’s just something that didn’t resonate with me. The movie itself failed for me simply because the writing and characters felt weak to me. Like I said before, Jones’ character was the only one who felt like a believable character to me. The rest felt like sketch-comedy characters. To me, at least. I know other people fell in love with them.
I can’t disagree with the first part of this. Abrams Trek is Abrams Trek. I feel like I would have rejected it more if they didn’t have original spock doing the alternate universe nonsense – but on a whole, that universe has never really felt like “Star Trek,” but they were fun action movies. …but again, something in my brain doesn’t reject it as hard because of that narrative tie in. Maybe i’m weird? I can’t explain it.
You know, it’s probably just Karl Urban. Everything ELSE about new Star Trek is wrong, but his Doctor McCoy is almost perfect.
I’m sorry if I’m not making sense. Hmm…see I’m also a Transformers fan. And there’s a story in a novelization where different versions of Optimus Prime from different continuities meet each other. They feel a familial connection, even though narratively, they are not at all connected. That’s how I feel about some reboots, including GB16.
Urban is great. Just never given a script to work with. And for that reason he will never be anywhere near perfect for me, as a Trekkie.
There needs to be new Ghostbusters media in one form or another or interest will die off. Need to create younger fans.
Where Sony screwed up,
its not the movie the fans wanted and didn’t appeal enough to the causal audience. Low box office and youtube dislikes Support this.
Sonys marketing was terrible. Very few disagree with that. What id give for a Ghostbusters made by marvel marketed by D.C.
All would be forgiven if the movie was great. Every one ive personally talked to said it was either: good, ok or “ive seen worse”. If ATC was amazing it would have overcame any backlash. But it wasnt and it didn’t. I think if the movie wasnt called Ghostbusters it would have made 100 million less
No, a lot of amazing movies don’t overcome obstacles at the box office. The world is not a fair place where if you’re amazing, everything just works out for you. I know you guys want this to be the end for GB16, but that remains to be seen.
He does great with what he has, though. His performance feels like McCoy.. where as the film’s version of Kirk and Spock simply don’t match the characters as well. Urban has a bit of an angrier spin on McCoy, but at least he feels like McCoy to me. He’s easily my favorite part of those films.
Maybe the ultimate contrast to him is Scotty. I love Simon Pegg, but his Scotty doesn’t feel like the real Montgomery to me.
Good movies might not be able to get over. Not all movies that do well are good. But spending a bunch of money on just an ok movie with fan resistance and terrible marketing is a for sure failure. I blame sony and paul feig, Not the cast
If calling it a failure makes your day brighter, I’ll leave you to it.
… Well not profitable and disappointing. Even if like ATC, you have to be disappointed that we will not get any live action Ghostbusters anytime soon. If a GB16 did $700 mil plus, we’d be swimming in ghostbusters stuff for years to come
All I wanted to stress is that fans, which I am not trying to diss, just don’t matter to a major studio blockbuster. Do you think Deadpool, the most successful of all the X-films, was propelled to nearly $800m worldwide by readers of an obscure spin-off comic far less popular than the “headliner” X-Men? Of course not – it was the fact that the marketing had a good hook and Ryan Reynolds went on television and told people it was funny. Movies that played to the fans include stuff like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and Kick-Ass – big bombs.
Another good example I thought of the other day: Star Trek is the older franchise, the one with more variants and iterations, and in fact Star Trek fans are basically the reason for modern fandom. I imagine Star Trek and Star Wars actually have pretty comparable die hard fanbases – two of the biggest. Yet, The Force Awakens grossed more than three of the most profitable Star Trek movies, because one draws in the moms and dads and aunts and uncles and little kids – when you’re at work and the people who seem like they care more about home repair and football than anything say they saw the new Star Wars, that’s general audience penetration. As fans we live in concentrated communities of like-minded people.
The fact that Ghostbusters never established itself fully as a movie franchise is a really relevant aspect of a new movie succeeding or failing. What the general public outside of fandom loves is the specific movie Ghostbusters, as a self-contained work.
Anyway, I’m with Kingpin. I loved the series since I was a kid, I’ve grown up my entire life feeling 100% confident there would be a new Ghostbusters movie in my lifetime, and past about 2009 it really did not bother me that the odds were it was going to be a remake or a reboot. Either way, it’s the idea of recapturing lightning in a bottle. Either way, things were going to be very different. Either way it was a risk. The Video Game provided a preview of what it would’ve been like…which, in my opinion, was more hit-and-miss than the reboot, with great visuals but a really awful Murray performance, the exaggerated constraints of CG comedy acting, and without the joy of the new stuff (it’s even more regurgitated than Ghostbusters II!), although hearing Ramis rattle off technical nonsense in near monotone was a genuine delight. The idea of this, with the additional constraints of live-action, with more emphasis placed on a new team than the old one, minus at least one but probably two of them? I just don’t see how that’s appealing, how that scratches that itch.