I don’t think anyone on here can say with a straight face that GB16 is a better or funnier film than GB84. With that being said, when a film is rebooted or remade, is it fair to judge the rebooted film against the original? And if so, if it’s not as good, has the reboot failed? I’m of the opinion that if you can’t improve upon the original then why bother rebooting? You can say “well it’s for a new generation” etc. But I don’t buy that excuse. Star Wars and Indiana Jones are still passed down from generation to generation, same with Ghostbusters.
Now a sequel not being as good as the original is different, or is it? A sequel is the continuing adventures of characters we already know and love. I can forgive a sequel for not being as good, because I just love spending time with the characters(this goes for any sequel of a quality film).
When you reboot or remake a film, it’s different. That original film is always going to be there. Especially if it’s a beloved classic like Ghostbusters. Was there ever any chance that GB16 would be better than the original? Did anyone go in the theatre expecting that?
I guess what I’m saying is: did this film ever have a chance? Female controversy or not, rebooting a beloved classic is going to rub people the wrong way right off the bat. The filmmakers are already fighting an uphill battle. Money is obviously the main reason GB was rebooted. Did anyone on that filmmaking team think “ok! Let’s make the best Ghostbusters movie of all time”? If they didn’t go into production with that mindset, why bother?
I think part of it is whether it did a good job of modernising it/bringing it to a new generation and whether or not that was necessary to begin with. Which is where part of my problem with the remake started from when it was first announced, it was just so unnecessary. GB was still a very prominent film, screened often on TV and very much still a part of modern pop culture, and it was still a universe prime for expansion, not replacement. I doubt many under-20s havn’t seen it. It was just all so unnecessary and unwanted. Compare it to, for example, the new Star Trek movies which successfully revived a thoroughly worn out franchise and re-introduced the characters and universe to a whole new generation. It wasnt better, but it did its own thing well enough and caused a generation of people to go back and check out the original series.
It brought the interaction of computers as research equipment to the forefront. Some characters in the reboot are given a backstory predating the formulation of the team. Erin explains why she believes in ghosts, Abby in a Ray like way believes her and they form a friendship. The original film doesn’t do much to develop any of the Ghostbusters past histories, and the film doesn’t show a very practical development of equipment. The new film gives a line of testing and prototype equipment. Also, they showed with the Proton box device, that they didn’t just “know” how to do it off the bat.
The new film is more practical and the old film plays off things more for laughs.
Better to me would be Real Ghostbusters as it is more fully developed and explained than any of the films, but honestly it took longer to get there considering we’re talking a show that ran 140 stories.
A important note in my argument that sheds a bit of light on my perspective, I like ghostbusters more as a supernatural Action film than really a comedy. If “comedy” is all you value in the Ghostbusters brand, you might as well skip anything coming out as comedy of the 80’s type has long past. I likewise don’t think the gender really mattered, and while the ghost baddie is male, the main human antagonist was actually the female mayor’s assistant.
Overall, I think looking at the films, better is really not the right word unless you explain what you call better in the way of traits first. Lots of the reboot explains itself well, unlike the original that assumes you can guess it all out on your own or that it doesn’t matter.
You know what I’ve been hearing a lot online lately? Various forms of “I had no idea there were so many people THAT passionate about Ghostbusters.” And no, they don’t mean it has a compliment. Ghostbusters* is* fondly remembered, as a light hearted comedy that everyone can enjoy. Not something to be jealously guarded by fanboys. You mention Star Trek, there’s a reason Trekkies have such a bad reputation (and I am one, so I can say this, hehe). They are known for their belligerent nitpicking and obsessive behavior. I don’t think the general public ever associated Ghostbusters with that kind of thing…not until this year.
Still, again, I don’t think this was really about a movie or a fanbase. This election year more than proves something very strange is going on in society right now.
I don’t think you see the irony here. You are bitching about people bitching. You’re caught in a loop! Anyways, This thread is an open question about what people felt. This isn’t about box office, it’s about opinion. “Failure” in this context means something a little different. Why do other people’s opinion’s about this film bother you so much? It’s like you take it personally or something.
“Too precious” this is fandom, there is no such thing as “too precious”. If I found out I was dying, the very last movie I’d watch is Ghostbusters. I’d play Dana’s theme at my funeral. How’s that for precious?(Oh and for the record I have no idea what you said about what happens when a movie becomes too precious)
And yeah, it is kind of a contest. It was always going to be a contest. What’s the prize? Profitability and a newer franchise. Here’s how I look at it: Some movies, like Godfather, Jaws, Raiders, E.T and Star Wars they are “unrebootable”. Ghostbusters belonged in that same crowd, Sony just didn’t realize it(though I’m sure they do now). People will accept comic book movie reboots, that goes without saying. You update a classic? You better have one helluva movie on your hands. Sony, Feig and Co didn’t have that movie. They had a movie where a better version already exists. I think some of the sexist comments, deplorable as they were, stemmed from a “what? You’re rebooting Ghostbusters!?!” Mindset. The reboot just couldn’t justify it’s existence. It’s just a shame that it took our beloved Ghostbusters for Hollywood to realize that some movies, you do not reboot.
Um, with that logic, the Ghostbusters should have sat back and let the slime take over the city.
Ask the fans who freak out every time we try to have a positive thread or post around here. Ask the fans who demand we stop talking about the movie altogether.
Well guess what, it was rebooted. The world didn’t end. And btw, Godfather, Jaws, Raiders, and Star Wars all had embarrassing, unnecessary sequels. Them being sequels do not somehow make them better than reboots.
They have not realized any such thing. They will never realize any such thing, because they know their public far better than the public know themselves. They just redid the Dirty Dozen and Ben-Hur, 50 year old classics, and I barely heard a peep about it. Fanboys pick and choose which remakes to be outraged by, despite their claims of being passionate students of film. They weren’t on any grand crusade for originality. They just overreacted to a movie, out of some juvenile worry over “continuity” and left most people scratching their heads. Frankly, being a prequel defender, you should be very familiar with fans overreacting to something new.
Why do you have to be so hyperbolic? “The world didn’t end” just stop with that. The world didn’t end but guess what we aren’t getting any time soon? Live action Ghostbusters movies! People will loose their jobs over this movie underperforming, don’t you understand that? Sony is in turmoil. Things arent peachy here, Juror. The movie bombed, badly. I am a prequel defender but I understand why people don’t like them. I like them because they work in conjunction with the OT, telling one massive story.
And yeah bad sequels are easier to swallow than bad reboots. Look at the original Star Trek series, every other sequel wasn’t well recieved. Same with Indiana Jones. Temple wasnt well received( though I love it) they made another sequel and people loved it!(Last a Crusade). A reboot is a decision that’s much harder to fix and go back on. Sequels are easy to fix. If you make a reboot that people hate, you’re screwed(Fantastic Four and Ghostbusters are good examples of this).
And yes Hollywood, or Sony, did learn their lesson. There is no live action Ghostbusters movie in pre production right now, which would be the case had the movie been accepted.
Dude it’s the truth. That’s not hyperbole. People are being let go at Sony Imageworks. Just wait until the 4th fiscal quarter. This happens ALL the time when a movie fails. People loose their jobs. It’s part and parcel with Hollywood my friend. I know too many people who have been on the wrong end of that equation
lol that’s not how it works. And again, I paid for my ticket. I did my part. Blame the marketing department, blame Paul Feig. They made a ■■■■ movie, not me.
I’ll blame the marketing department; I’ve never had any problem with doing that. But I’ll also blame the fans who are still whining about a trailer months later and continue to confuse it with the movie itself. And even if you paid your ticket, you’ve still done nothing but bitch and overreact and make sure the word of mouth was anything but positive.
Juror, I can really understand you are fed up with the contstant belittling of GB:ATC, but I see you are speaking with increasing anger.
Might I suggest you take a day off to calm yourself down?
I did when HunterCC and me got into a stalemate when a median is useful to sort out biased opinions and thought: well, if he just does not agree, who cares?
I see some merit in this thread, even if the OP has already made up his mind it seems, but I will form my opinion tomorrow after some thought to say it best.
Haha you’re right. Next time my all time fav film is rebooted by a crappy movie I’ll lie and say I liked it. “Overreact” you really do take it personally don’t you?
I think you are giving my negative opinion a bit too much credit for the movies failing. But hey, I’ll take it.
Yeah, the list of reboots better than their originals is pretty short. The Jungle Book, Star Trek, Ocean’s 11, not much jumps out at me from this list below. Sony’s rebooting of Spiderman had mixed success, and they are still trying.
I think a reboot of Ghostbusters was tougher than a sequel would have been, but I think a GB reboot had a chance. Just obviously not with the GB16 cast and crew.
I don’t think a reboot should need to be better than the original, it just has to be good. But seems like that’s a factor.
