Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Does Everything Need a Reboot?
So, it’s official (it was announced on Twitter, therefore it is both legally binding and morally binding in the eyes of the Lord): Paul Feig — who brought us Bridesmaids and The Heat is doing a Ghostbusters reboot:
What I want to ask is this: Why does everything need a reboot?
The Wikipedia defines a reboot as
In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning.
This makes sense for some franchises. They made three perfectly good Spiderman movies (I liked them anyway) but then they rebooted it because they wanted to start over.
From a storytelling point of view, I understand the reason. If you reboot things, you’re not tied to the existing — and possibly overlong and overblown — mythos of a work. So, JJ Abrams does a Star Trek reboot, and he’s not tied to the existing continuity that dates back to before the moon landings.
The problem in that case is that all of Star Trek up to that point — five television series (two of which were good) and 10 movies (three of which were good) — all existed in the same universe. It lasted 45 years without a reboot and was much loved as such.
I understand not wanting to be tied to existing mythos. Dr. Who is a good example of a series that needed a reboot after 40 years worth of episodes under many different hands (with some of them irrevocably lost). Nobody would want to be tied to that continuity.
But with Ghostbusters, is there a need to start over? There was always supposed to be a third Ghostbusters movie, it just never came together. But it’s a story that could be easily continued. Any reboot is going to be compared to the original and found wanting (even with hilarious women).
Now, it could be that they’ll do it right, and it’ll be a new classic. Maybe it’s just that Ghostbusters is special to me and I don’t want to see it touched.
But am I alone here? Am I the only person annoyed by unnecessary reboots?
Published in General
At least with a female cast they can save 30% on salaries.
The problem you have when you mess with something that successful is that even if it is pretty good it won’t live up to expectations.
Agreed, Valiuth. Modern talents, technology, and sensibility can bring freshness or new spin or improvements. Spiderman, though, is just confusing to me. For the comic book movies, and even iconic franchises, I’d prefer that new entries be done as serials rather than reboots or sequels. James Bond can keep a contitnuity even with replacement actors or even new characters. I’d love to see more good Indiana Jones movies even without Harrison Ford – especially without Harrison Ford after the Crystal Skull fiasco. It was the adventure, the period, and also the excellent craft that went into making and acting those movies.
One issue is that when a movie is dated it is harder to suspend disbelief when watching it.
A person born in 1990, can’t have anything near the same experience watching the original Ghostbusters for the first time that I did. For me, Ghostbusters took place in my world. The new viewer sees dial telephones and antique cars and is subject to the contradiction that he is watching a past event that could not have occurred. The movie has to be rebooted to give him anything like the appreciation that I had for the original.
Yep. The brainwashing enemies weren’t the Commies as in the original; they were the EEEEVIL CORPORATIONS! :: twirls mustache ::
I can’t think of a better example of the ideological cul-de-sac Hollywood has become.
Yeah, phones are interesting. Even stuff made in the 90’s looks like they’re using walkie-talkies or Star Trek original series communicators compared to what we use today.
I wish Mr. Feig good luck, and perhaps he will find a new audience for the new Ghostbusters. But, that film and its sequel are two of my favorite movies from childhood, and a couple of the first I actually recall seeing in the theater. They also made a cartoon and toys that I liked a lot. They will not be able to replicate that experience for me. I will not like the reboot.
And now, the political: Why does it have to star hilarious women? The Ghostbusters were supposed to be exterminators–to this day, a male dominated profession–for supernatural pests. Or you could think of them as garbage men for the spirit world. I mean, the containment unit was basically a land fill for ghosts. It was even regulated (disastrously) by the EPA! And, no little girl dreams of lugging around a proton pack. Sorry.
And, what about the hilarious women from the original series? Annie Potts had a relatively small role, but she was amazing. Sigourney Weaver’s part was serious, but I can’t imagine the movies without her, and her portrayal of a possessed woman is better than I’ve seen in any horror film. Feig’s tweet is rather dismissive of the great female performances from the original.
That’s part of what I’m getting at, though: sometimes appreciation is only possible through the lens of that time. Other times, dial telephones and old cars are irrelevant to the story, characters, and craft of the movie. I think Ghostbusters may be a bit of both.
The antique technology isn’t what makes it unbelievable. It’s the giant marshmallow man.
My understanding is that showing skeletons is taboo in China.
Spoilers!
If “Showing Skeletons” is euphemistically the same as “Doing The Bone Dance”, it’s taboo here as well.
(I may have kinked my spine making that big of a stretch.)
The new movie may turn out to be good but there is nobody who can replace Rick Moranis as Louis Tully.
Everything needs a reboot because it runs on Windows instead of Linux…
Little known fact: that is now Jonah’s infamous spaghetti strainer.
It doesn’t “have” to, but take a look at the current crop of big-name sketch-comedy/improv-comedy actors who would be appropriate. At this particular moment in history, the women in this field are better than the men, IMHO.
A male Ghostbusters crew draw from the talents of folk like Seth Rogan, James Franco, Jason Sudeikis, Craig Robinson, Jonah Hill, Patton Oswalt, Ed Helms, B.J. Novak, etc, etc, etc.
A female Ghostbusters crew will draw from the talents of folk like Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Amy Poehler, Tina Fey, Angela Kinsey, Ellie Kemper, etc, etc, etc.
If I was forced to choose between these two option available, I gotta say that I’d choose the women.
Of course, neither crop of talent is right for a Ghostbusters movie. There shouldn’t be a third Ghostbusters movie in the first place.
Rob Long may disagree, but I believe all these comic book movies, reboots of old movies, and reboots of reboots (hello Batman and Superman!) mean that Hollywood has run out of original ideas.
Sure, movies derived from books are still done (from Gone With The Wind to Gone Girl), but even good, original movies get parts 2, 3, 4, etc. (Madagascar, Toy Story, Fast and Furious, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc.).
I don’t know if this is due to creative laziness (my theory), or the unwillingness of movie executives to take a risk with their studio dollars (go with what has worked before).
Bottom line? I don’t go to movies in the theater (cost and convenience, not to mention jerks that won’t mute their cell phones), and I don’t watch TV except for sports (90% football, the rest being golf, and pro baseball & college basketball playoffs). The TV shows I do watch, I wait until the season is over, then buy the DVDs – but after they have been marked down. My wife and I do that bulk DVD viewing thing (what’s the term?), watching two or more episodes a night until we see them all.
Exceptions? My wife watches Downton Abbey, and Sullivan and Son (thanks, Rob!) on her Kindle Fire. I refuse to watch anything on TV on a screen less that 26″ . . .
Take out all the foreigners (Canadians get to be honorary Americans here), and the number goes down a lot. There was once this thing called VHS (you might have heard of it) that allowed folks to watch movies after the first run, even those (like me) that weren’t around back then. Ghostbusters is pretty iconic to anyone who grew up in the 90’s, that’s for sure. Maybe the younguns nowadays won’t get it, but they aren’t the target audience for a reboot, anyways.
Misthio, I’m not sure I agree with you on that. Not that I don’t find those women funny.
But, the Ghostbusters were men hanging out in a firehouse, smoking cigarettes, lugging around equipment, and going into dank places to get the job done. Those aren’t female activities. I’m not opposed to adding a girl or maybe even two, but as someone else said so well above, the “creators” of the reboot are starting off by assuming that they need to fix the old, sexist version. And, if you remove those macho aspects of the film, I’m not sure I’d like it.
It’s beyond me why anyone would think the Ghostbusters was sexist, but I feel as though a modern, gender sensitive approach to the film is going to be one that no one likes. Girls aren’t interested in proton packs and ghouls, for the most part, and guys don’t want to watch girls act like guys.
The original Ghostbusters firehouse was a start-up culture.
I am operating under the assumption that the next movie will be a sequel rather than a reboot, and that the women will be franchisees of a mature Ghostbusters Incorporated.
At least, that’s how I’d write it if I was the guy in charge of writing it.
They’d get their kit and their training from the mother corp, and much of the comedy would revolve around how corporate bureaucracy and risk aversion has led to Ghostbusters franchises becoming sterile, automated, and largely ineffective.
The ladies would be first attracted to the idea of buying a franchise due to the appeal of the mother corp “making it so easy even a girl can do it”, but after a while the ladies would then have to unlearn the corporate culture in order to defeat the “big bad guy”. It would be both a celebration of entrepreneurship (like the original) while also throwing a bone to the anti-corporate progs.
Also, remember, the original Ghostbusters were major-league nerds, out of shape, and heavy smokers. Clearly, personal fitness is not a requirement for success in this particular industry. Unlicenced nuclear accelerators must be pretty lightweight, eh? ;-)
I also think that even Bill Murray could maybe be encouraged to get on board if they went in this direction, playing Peter Venkman as a CEO who has been inside the corporate bubble for so long that he’s forgotten what the business is really all about.
Remember how in the first movie Venkman had the line, “the franchising rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams.” Basically, he’s allowed his company to become something close to the very scam that Walter Peck accused it of being way back in 1984.
On the other hand, that might be too close to his character from Scrooged to pique his interest…
Because Hollywood is utterly and completely void of any original ideas, with the possible exception of Christopher Nolan (yeah, I know he rebooted Batman but I’m talking about his other stuff like Inception). It would probably be more correct to say that Hollywood execs are terrified of losing money so pitching a reboot of a successful movie is easier than pitching an original idea.
Just another reason why Hollywood blows big time.
Breaking news: Ghostbusters 4 will feature an entirely transgender cast!
< devil’s advocate mode = on >
Christopher Nolan’s “Insomnia” was a remake of a Norwegian film.
Many (arguably) great (or at least good) movies are remakes:
< devil’s advocate mode = off >
Remakes of silent movies don’t count and I would argue that the bolded remakes weren’t any good.
Sing it brotha Ed!!!
Not just making remakes of good things, they’re remaking the TV series Lost in Space: http://deadline.com/2014/10/lost-in-space-reboot-dracula-writers-legendary-tv-848901/
So I went to look at the alerts this morning and I saw the title of this thread and thought it said Why Does Everything Need A Robot?
Then I was like “Oh man, that would make a great thread!”
Then I was like “No it wouldn’t. Robots are awesome. That’s why.”
Right. They’ve been talking for 20 years about a third Ghostbusters and that was the idea. They pass the touch to a new generation.
Funny sidenote: In the first movie, Peter mentions how rich the franchising rights would make them.
Yeah, I think a reboot means that the new movie starts from the beginning of the story, changes out the actors, changes the tone a bit, maybe sets the movie in modern day, uses different editing / cinematic techniques, but basically keep the arc of the narrative the same. I don’t think this will be a sequel, nor do I want to watch a sequel at this time. I guess I just want them to leave it be. Make a funny female comedy that’s original. I’d probably actually watch that and enjoy it, instead of preemptively hating this thing.
Then there’s the Blues Brothers 2000 factor. Whether reboot, sequel, serial, or next generation, the content must at least be good even if it’s inevitably….. different*. Oh, and there better be no kid, no robot, no little person, or any other gimmick to punch up the script.
*Thinking about all the cultural changes since the original Blues Brothers, the changes for Chicago specifically, I’d actually be interested to see what happened to Jake and Elwood once they got outta the joint. Even if it were closer to a drama. I’m envisioning a sparse score and sound palette definitely downplayed in contrast to the raucous R&B from the original and a contrast to the still-raucous Chicago of that time. Though I’m not a fan, maybe the Coen brothers would be the right ones to explore this.
Well, that’s a pretty arbitrary rule. You must be gunning for a position on the Supreme Court. ;-)