|Photo Credit: Wikimedia|
I had no idea it was sparking so much outrage until I heard about it from a friend. Turns out there are a bunch of people who are crying into their 30-year old novelty Ghostbusters t-shirts are making a lot of noise about all the "good reasons" why there should be no remake of this movie. Oh, but just to be clear, they aren't sexist or anything. Their anger is not disproportionate to a potentially bad movie coming out. They have really good reasons to be SO ANGRY.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I like to be logical. I like to dismantle arguments one by one and then be really really frustrated when I realize that the person I am talking to doesn't care about logic and will cling to their hyperbolic rage no matter what.
So let's start the process, shall we? Let's look at the "really logical reasons" people are giving for why they are SO OUTRAGED about this movie:
1) Hollywood does too many remakes.
You think? Hollywood executives clearly have a terrible case of New Story Blindness and have decided to suck all the
So yes. There are too many remakes. This is a fine argument as long as you are also going to write long diatribes against the zillionth Spiderman, refuse to review the live-action Beauty and the Beast that can't possibly include a dancing candlestick, flip the table over a remake of the cult classic Clue that may include different locations than the original, or tell everyone to boycott the reboot of teen witch cult film The Craft on its way.
Oh wait, you don't give two turds about The Craft because it was a movie starring women in the first place.
2) It has nothing to do with the first two movies.
Um, it's a REBOOT. So it has everything to do with the movie that it is REBOOTING. I realize you had your hopes up for a Ghostbusters 3 and were all set for a sequel that expanded on the original story, but even before Harold Ramis died Bill Murray said he wouldn't be in it. Later, Dan Aykroyd said on Larry King that they would need a whole new cast. Check Wikipedia, he even describes the plot basically as what it is now. You are essentially getting the Ghostbusters 3 that Aykroyd came up with after Murray pulled out.
Besides, this argument only really work if you're set to picket outside of movie studios over other remakes, like the new Commando that will not start Arnold Schwarzenegger and the producer said it might not "make sense to call it Commando" because it's too different.
3) It was my favourite childhood movie and now they're going to ruin it!
Okay, little bunny. You're right. Reboots, sequels, and adaptations tend to be sad shadows of their former selves. I don't know why you thought a Ghostbusters 3 would be immune from this fate, but you did.
Whenever a beloved story gets either turned into a movie or remade, it risks total ruination. Do you even remember how the live action Jem and the Holograms movie was like a sad, hipster Josie and the Pussycats? No? Because no one watched it because it was a sad, hipster Josie and the Pussycats. (Instead of screaming on the internet as if our lives were going to end, however, those of us who loved Jem simply didn't see the movie. So much easier.)
When you first saw Ghostbusters, you were a wide-eyed child with a heart that had not yet been beaten down by the cruelty of life. You were still learning how horrible the world is. Now, your heart is full of anger and you don't know what to do with it except write angry rants on the internet about a movie with women in it (but don't worry, definitely not because you're sexist). So yeah, the movie will probably disappoint you.
Personally, I am more worried about the Jumanji and Honey I Shrunk the Kids reboots.
4) The effects are bad.
First of all Ghostbusters II is actually on a list of the worst movie special effects EVER.
Second, since when did we completely shun movies just because of some bad special effects in the trailer? What about Michael Bay, everyone? WHAT ABOUT MICHAEL BAY??? Are you so distracted by Meghan Fox's bum that you don't see the bad effects? (The answer is yes, yes you are.)
5) It just doesn't look funny.
I read one long article (that I can't find now, sorry) about how the new trailer just doesn't have the carefree spirit of the original movie and simply isn't funny.
Well. I guess I have to allow for differences of opinion here, but I stand by my original stance that the trailer looks hilarious. I even compared it to the original movie's trailer, and, well, I think the new one is funnier. Mostly, admittedly, because I think the timing is sharper in the new one, which is more of an editing thing.
Let's put them up next to each other. The old one and the new one (we'll use the second trailer for the new one, since it's longer format, too):
Now, I know there's no convincing trolls, but let's look at it. The old one does this sort of faux news-advertorial about the ghostbusters as its format. It's a funny schtick. The new one isn't quite so meta, but it starts with the same vibe, and then pulls a quick shift into the comedic/monster movie genre that it is.
I guess you don't have to think it's funny. But since when did a movie that was supposed to be funny and isn't get so much rage? So far I've only seen this happen once - as in, this one time - and the only thing that made this one potentially not-as-funny-as-expected movie different than the others is that it stars a bunch of women.
So? Trolls? Have I convinced you with my razor-sharp logic? No? You're still going to cling to your sad anger because it's all you have in the world and you can't let go and it wouldn't matter what I said or how great the movie turned out to be, you'd still be this mad?
Does it matter that Bill Murray thinks it's funny? Does throwing one of your (male) comedy heroes in there finally convince you?
Right-o. Back to your anger.