Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Chrisicisms

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
Why I hope the new ‘Ghostbusters’ is great

Why I hope the new ‘Ghostbusters’ is great

Last updated on: May 18, 2016 at 7:46 am by Chris Williams

Why I hope the new ‘Ghostbusters’ is great 2016-05-18T07:46:23-05:00 Chris Williams

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo courtesy of Sony Pictures.

Two months before the release of “Ghostbusters,” I have to wonder if Paul Feig’s answer to “Who you gonna call” is “A better PR team.”

Feig’s remake of Ivan Reitman’s beloved 1984 comedy is making entertainment headlines, but probably not for the reasons he’s hoped. Its trailer has earned the distinction of the most disliked trailer on Youtube. Today, a reviewer at the website Cinemassacre announced that he flat out refuses to review the film. While I’m sure the world will continue to turn without knowing what a man who bills himself as “Angry Video Game Nerd” thinks about “Ghostbusters,” the 20 pages of comments on the page suggest he’s struck a chord…at least with other angry male video game nerds.

What is it that’s making these men guys so riled-up about a summer movie? It seems to boil down to two things: 1.) Someone has the guts to remake “Ghostbusters” and 2.) They’re remaking it with women.

Listen, I can understand their concern on the first point. Ivan Reitman’s “Ghostbusters” might be the first movie I fell in love with. As a kid, I watched it until we wore the video cassette out. My brother and I would run around the house with our plastic proton packs and containment traps, making our own “Ghostbuster” movies with my grandfather’s camcorder. When I was in fourth grade, the first lengthy thing I ever wrote was a 99-page story called “Ghostbusters, Jr.,” featuring my friends and I as the protagonists. Were it not for the Ghostbusters, I probably would not be writing today.

The great thing about “Ghostbusters” is that it got better as I got older. When I was a kid, I liked the special effects and ghost-busting mayhem. As I hit my teenage and adult years, I picked up on the deadpan humor and the wonderful mixture of blue-collar comedy with supernatural shenanigans. It was the movie that taught me the joy of Bill Murray, but I also cherish Dan Aykroyd’s childlike enthusiasm and Harold Ramis’ ultra-dry delivery. Finally seeing it on the big screen a few years ago was as great as I’d dreamed, and one of my highlights of 2015 was spending a half hour on the phone talking to Ernie Hudson about the movie.

So yeah, the idea that anyone thinks they can just come on in and recapture that causes me to raise an eyebrow.

In his manifesto, Angry Video Game Nerd says that what fans wanted was not a remake of “Ghostbusters” but a sequel with the original cast. Here’s the thing: I didn’t even want that. The magic of the original “Ghostbusters” was very delicate, and the same cast and crew couldn’t even replicate it with “Ghostbusters II.” What would make anyone think they could do it 30 years on, especially with Ramis gone, Rick Moranis retired and Bill Murray disinterested? Anytime “Ghostbusters 3” rumors would surface, I’d roll my eyes and say “we don’t need this.” Sometimes you just have to let a perfect movie stand on its own.

And then it was announced Paul Feig was remaking the film with an all-female cast of Ghostbusters. And guess what? That’s when I got excited.

Here’s the thing: a sequel to the original with Old Ghostbusters would be painful. Watching them hand off the torch would be anticlimactic; you’d constantly be comparing the new recruits to the old ones. Aykroyd’s comments worried me. He was so focused on new supernatural aspects, elaborate mythologies and building a Ghostbusters universe. He seemed to forget that the success of “Ghostbusters” never lied in its concept but in the chemistry between its stars.

And the idea of a straight remake just seemed foolhardy. Were you really going to get another actor to play Peter Venkman? Was there any way to do a remake of “Ghostbusters” and not have it compared to one of the greatest comedic casts ever assembled?

But when they announced Feig, and then brought in Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, I got excited. While I still was suspicious about the idea of remaking “Ghostbusters,” this seemed like the only possible way to get it right.

“Ghostbusters” isn’t special because it’s a supernatural comedy. There are many of those. “Ghostbusters” is special because it captured a moment in 1984. There were few bigger names in Hollywood comedy in the early eighties than Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd. They’d gained fame on “Saturday Night Live” and “SCTV,” and their filmographies at that point already included “The Blues Brothers,” “Animal House,” “Meatballs” and “Stripes.” This wasn’t a movie with a bunch of upstarts trying to make a hit; it was an all-star team coming together to make magic — and it worked.

If you wanted to recapture that spirit today, you would very likely turn to this director and this cast. Wiig, Jones and McKinnon have been the funniest people on “Saturday Night Live” over the past five years or so. Melissa McCarthy is a comedic superstar and a proven box office draw (and her hosting gigs on “SNL” are regularly the best episodes of the year). Paul Feig would merit inclusion just for his work with “Freaks and Geeks,” the best television show of the past 20 years. I think “Bridesmaids” is the best comedy of the decade so far, and I thought McCarthy deserved an Oscar nomination for her work in last year’s very funny “Spy.”

If you want your “Ghostbusters” remake to have any chance of being memorable, you need a solid director and a very funny cast. And while I’m sure there are enough funny men to fill out an ensemble, the truth is I don’t know that you have a more reliable cast than these four very funny women. And reversing the genders means we won’t be comparing each one to the original Ghostbusters. This can be its own thing. When this cast was announced, it didn’t just make me okay with the idea of a “Ghostbusters” remake; it made me excited about it.

Does that mean it will be good? Not necessarily. It could fall flat. As great as it is, “Ghostbusters” was something of a miracle, with a tone that had to be precisely navigated to pull off the mixture of special effects and humor. Many comedies that try to mix those two things — including “Ghostbusters II” — have stumbled in their attempts, and it’s possible Feig and his cast could, too. I still have my apprehensions about them doing a remake instead of letting this be a sequel set in the same world. And while I didn’t think the trailer was bad, it didn’t make me laugh much; but then again, the trailers for “Spy” and “Bridesmaids” didn’t do much for me, either. Like any movie I haven’t seen, “Ghostbusters” could be great, or it could be a disaster.

But I hope it’s great. And the more people I see like Angry Video Game Nerd, the greater I hope it is. Because as much as they want to say that their problem is that someone is daring to remake “Ghostbusters,” the real issue underlying much of the rage is that they’re remaking it with female Ghostbusters. They remake movies all the time, even great movies. But it’s the one with the gender swap that’s causing fanboys to go apoplectic (after all, if the nerds truly hated remakes, we’d get these same manifestos about ‘Ben-Hur,” but I don’t see them coming). And we see it coming out of the same curdled culture that gave us Gamer-Gate or that blast angry comments at female critics who disliked a Batman movie.

Women historically don’t get a fair shake in Hollywood (or anywhere in the world). Execs still think films with female leads can’t be successful at the box office, even after “The Hunger Games.” They think women can’t lead franchises, even after Charlize Theron stole the last “Mad Max” right out from under Tom Hardy. They think women aren’t funny, even as Amy Schumer’s “Trainwreck” and Feig’s “Spy” were two of the best comedies of 2015. And they’re still cautious about female superheroes, even after Wonder Woman was one of the only things that worked in “Batman v Superman” and Black Widow has consistently been one of the best presences in the Marvel movies.

So you know what? I want “Ghostbusters” to be great, because I want them to get the world’s attention. I know these are very funny women; I know they can knock this out of the park with the right script. I want people to see that these women can stand toe-to-toe with one of the greatest comedy ensembles of all time. I want it to be as funny as I know it can be.

Previous Post

May 12, 2016

The rainbow disconnection: Goodbye, "Muppets"

Next Post

May 25, 2016 Preview of coming blog attractions

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category christmas Culture humor interviews Lists long reads movies we need news Podcasts Reviews story of God Uncategorized Weekend Read

Select a Month October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Psalm ends the Book of Psalms with "Let everything that has breath praise the Lord"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Psalm 100 Psalm 50 Psalm 150 Psalm 23