I reject both this "Ghostbusters wasn't that funny" revisionism AND the idea that this is what Ghostbusters fans want from a GB movie. This is what some bizarre subset of incels and nostalgia freaks want, but anyone I know who loved the original has been like "But... where are the jokes? What IS this thing?"
Me have said this before, but one problem with extending Ghostbusters into franchise is that there nothing actually funny about busting ghosts. It not sure-fire comedy premise, apart from it making good framework for "slackers with crazy scheme" movie that was staple of 80's comedy.
But that only get you so far, as "slackers who run successful business" not all that funny.
So you can turn it into kid-friendly horror franchise, as Saturday morning cartoon did. And me assumed casting Finn Wolfhard was attempt to do that and reach Stranger Things audience. And that probably would have worked if Reitman Jr. not had tried to have it both ways, and pass torch to new cast only to immediately yank it back and thrust it into liver-spotted hands of original cast.
Me fear that Hollywood will never learn lesson that nostalgia alone not make movie good. We liked Ghostbusters because it was funny. Just make funny movie! That not should be this hard!
I've asked the question about what Ghostbusters (the original) and who it was for. Bill Murray makes some pretty blue jokes in that movie and Dan Ackroyd gets a blowjob from a dead person. The new movies don't really lean into that kind of nostalgia.
Gad, but I disliked Afterlife: plodding, solemn, devoid of spark. Anyone who preferred it to the (still lumpy and imperfect) 2016 outing needs to re-examine some things.
Kudos to the trailer editors of this movie, because they had me thinking this movie might have something going for it besides trying to play the hits. From what I hear, not so much.
Yesterday I read an article about Patricia Richardson, who played Jill Taylor, the wife on Home Improvement. When asked about a potential Home Improvement revival (which Tim Allen has occasionally broached), she was quick to shut it down: no, it wouldn't be the same, Wilson's dead, one of the sons is a felon and the other two don't really act anymore. She said the job ended years ago and she was fine moving on. It was refreshing, especially since it would have meant a paycheck for her to say otherwise.
This whole revival culture, relive the 80s and 90s as much as you can while everyone is still alive, is weird and irksome to me. It does occasionally result in an enjoyable piece of media (I liked the Saved By The Bell revival -- it was exceptionally clever, and The Conners was good for a laugh.) But it's way too prominent.
"Dan Aykroyd allowed to indulge his every whim, to make exactly the movie he wants" is going to result in a mess, something I have no interest in watching. People that I respect keep telling me this guy is a genius, and so funny: what's wrong with me for not enjoying his work?
It took many decades for me to discover that his ideas can be the starting point for brilliant works. That his particular contributions can add something amazing to an otherwise more by-the-numbers production.
His original idea for Ghostbusters sounds like a real mess. But taking an obsessively-researched set of paranormal observations, and treating them very seriously, and building a world around that? The fates aligned to form something very special. And after that, I was able to see his other work, even the messy failures, as something far more interesting. Even if I wasn't laughing, I could appreciate what he had going on.
Sometimes it feels like he's not actually trying to be funny, he's just going off on an extended diatribe with a clipped delivery. Maybe he's self-aware enough to figure out when he's found a specific topic that is gaining some traction, or maybe he puts his trust in others to steer his passion in a direction that gains some traction. Edited into a performance that clicks with audiences, even if most of the people aren't vibrating on his same frequency. They don't have to.
That's pretty much how Nothing But Trouble ended up: a mess. People may appreciate it more in retrospect, Nathan included (and I even enjoyed it more on a recent viewing), but there was no way it was going to end up a success at the time of its release. Maybe that's Aykroyd's gift - he's literally ahead of the curve in terms of audience likes and desires. Okay, maybe not.
I'd love to watch someone good play that game. To watch an edited-down version of a full play-through. It would still be "watching someone play a video game", it wouldn't ever be "just like watching a movie", but I can easily imagine some version of that being pretty fun.
Because, yes, I had just about the same experience: a thrilling concept with a few truly excellent moments, but not actually all that fun to play. Because I'm not an exceptionally skilled player, because it would often take a very long time to clear areas / complete missions? Yes, but it wasn't JUST that.
"It's the 3rd Ghostbusters movie that you thought would never happen!" = no, but it still feels like a bit of a hidden gem, an extended set of Bonus Scenes that are exciting to discover.
I dunno. I was 13 when I was sitting in the theater audience to watch the first one, then 18 and on a date for Ghostbusters II. I loved the original, played the song constantly, had the black muscle-shirt (sans muscles), liked the second, and can still watch them both (just saw II again on New Years Eve and there are parts I still quote). But something very interesting happened. I had a daughter. When she was very little, maybe four or five, I introduced her to Ghostbusters. Sure, she was a little young for it and I had my wife and father-in-law questioning if I should let her watch something like that, but she loved it. I don't recall if she watched the second one at all during this time, but she watched the first one over and over and over.
By the time she was six, the 2016 movie came out. We did wait for streaming, but we all watched it together. I was a little underwhelmed, but didn't hate it. I love the cast and really enjoyed Feig's other McCarthy movies, but it just lacked something. HOWEVER, my daughter began to refer to it as "My Ghostbusters." Whenever she sees something with Melissa McCarthy in it, she says "Look, it's Abby!"
Five years later, I now have a son who's old enough for Ghostbusters and Afterlife comes out. Again, I like that they did something different with it, had the old characters back and the new characters grew on us. It, too, was a little underwhelming, but overall we liked it and have seen it several times since. And yes, the end makes me tear up a little. It got me.
Which brings us to Frozen Empire. My daughter is a full-blown Stranger Things fanatic now. The Funko Pops are all lined up in her room of all the characters in multiple variations. She saw a trailer for the new GB and as soon as Slimer gets Finn Wolfhard, she said "Haha, take that, Mike!" She's going to see this as a fan, not just a fan of the original, but of the series that she also grew up with (and a fan of certain young cast members). I exposed her to a lot of movies I grew up on and some are in her constant rotation. Being able to have children who, at only 13 and 9, know the Ghostbusters series very well - my daughter even met Dan Ackroyd when she was little while wearing a GB t-shirt - and can appreciate it as a series is making me look forward to the new one.
I think most movies that are part of a known IP or brand (like random Marvel movies) have an almost unfair amount of expectations going in. And the reviews have ranged from good to poor, so it like a lot of things must be pretty subjective. I may not see it in the theaters, gotta save a little bit of cabbage these days - last time I took just the kids to a movie, the whole shebang cost around $75 - but we will see it.
I think there are many things that are true about Ghostbusters in general.
1. The 2016 reboot was largely, but not completely, sunk by a bunch of pathetic man-children, the type of people (who I didn't realize existed until well into adulthood) who won't read, watch, or play something with a female main character because "they can't identify with her."
2. The 2016 reboot was bad and the casting was bad (I can't get with Kate McKinnon being a star; she's a slightly above-average comic who works very, very hard to get her laughs). If you give me an all-women Ghostbusters team with, like, Tina Fey, Kaitlin Olsen, Amy Poehler, and Tiffany Haddish, I'm in that theater all day, even if the script sucks (like 2016 Ghostbusters's script did).
3. Ghostbusters was a one-off phenomenon, two-off if you're counting the surprisingly good '80s cartoon follow-up. It was not meant for franchising or sequelization.
4. Ghostbusters 2 sucked, but at least it sucked somewhat memorably. This latest Ghostbusters reboot pair of movies seem like they were written and cast by a malevolent AI.
I reject both this "Ghostbusters wasn't that funny" revisionism AND the idea that this is what Ghostbusters fans want from a GB movie. This is what some bizarre subset of incels and nostalgia freaks want, but anyone I know who loved the original has been like "But... where are the jokes? What IS this thing?"
Me have said this before, but one problem with extending Ghostbusters into franchise is that there nothing actually funny about busting ghosts. It not sure-fire comedy premise, apart from it making good framework for "slackers with crazy scheme" movie that was staple of 80's comedy.
But that only get you so far, as "slackers who run successful business" not all that funny.
So you can turn it into kid-friendly horror franchise, as Saturday morning cartoon did. And me assumed casting Finn Wolfhard was attempt to do that and reach Stranger Things audience. And that probably would have worked if Reitman Jr. not had tried to have it both ways, and pass torch to new cast only to immediately yank it back and thrust it into liver-spotted hands of original cast.
Me fear that Hollywood will never learn lesson that nostalgia alone not make movie good. We liked Ghostbusters because it was funny. Just make funny movie! That not should be this hard!
I've asked the question about what Ghostbusters (the original) and who it was for. Bill Murray makes some pretty blue jokes in that movie and Dan Ackroyd gets a blowjob from a dead person. The new movies don't really lean into that kind of nostalgia.
Gad, but I disliked Afterlife: plodding, solemn, devoid of spark. Anyone who preferred it to the (still lumpy and imperfect) 2016 outing needs to re-examine some things.
Kudos to the trailer editors of this movie, because they had me thinking this movie might have something going for it besides trying to play the hits. From what I hear, not so much.
Yesterday I read an article about Patricia Richardson, who played Jill Taylor, the wife on Home Improvement. When asked about a potential Home Improvement revival (which Tim Allen has occasionally broached), she was quick to shut it down: no, it wouldn't be the same, Wilson's dead, one of the sons is a felon and the other two don't really act anymore. She said the job ended years ago and she was fine moving on. It was refreshing, especially since it would have meant a paycheck for her to say otherwise.
This whole revival culture, relive the 80s and 90s as much as you can while everyone is still alive, is weird and irksome to me. It does occasionally result in an enjoyable piece of media (I liked the Saved By The Bell revival -- it was exceptionally clever, and The Conners was good for a laugh.) But it's way too prominent.
"Dan Aykroyd allowed to indulge his every whim, to make exactly the movie he wants" is going to result in a mess, something I have no interest in watching. People that I respect keep telling me this guy is a genius, and so funny: what's wrong with me for not enjoying his work?
It took many decades for me to discover that his ideas can be the starting point for brilliant works. That his particular contributions can add something amazing to an otherwise more by-the-numbers production.
His original idea for Ghostbusters sounds like a real mess. But taking an obsessively-researched set of paranormal observations, and treating them very seriously, and building a world around that? The fates aligned to form something very special. And after that, I was able to see his other work, even the messy failures, as something far more interesting. Even if I wasn't laughing, I could appreciate what he had going on.
Sometimes it feels like he's not actually trying to be funny, he's just going off on an extended diatribe with a clipped delivery. Maybe he's self-aware enough to figure out when he's found a specific topic that is gaining some traction, or maybe he puts his trust in others to steer his passion in a direction that gains some traction. Edited into a performance that clicks with audiences, even if most of the people aren't vibrating on his same frequency. They don't have to.
That's pretty much how Nothing But Trouble ended up: a mess. People may appreciate it more in retrospect, Nathan included (and I even enjoyed it more on a recent viewing), but there was no way it was going to end up a success at the time of its release. Maybe that's Aykroyd's gift - he's literally ahead of the curve in terms of audience likes and desires. Okay, maybe not.
I will say that I liked Atherton's role in the Ghostbusters video game.
It had solid writing and most of the original cast (it was before Ramis died) but was a bit of a chore to actually play.
I'd love to watch someone good play that game. To watch an edited-down version of a full play-through. It would still be "watching someone play a video game", it wouldn't ever be "just like watching a movie", but I can easily imagine some version of that being pretty fun.
Because, yes, I had just about the same experience: a thrilling concept with a few truly excellent moments, but not actually all that fun to play. Because I'm not an exceptionally skilled player, because it would often take a very long time to clear areas / complete missions? Yes, but it wasn't JUST that.
"It's the 3rd Ghostbusters movie that you thought would never happen!" = no, but it still feels like a bit of a hidden gem, an extended set of Bonus Scenes that are exciting to discover.
I dunno. I was 13 when I was sitting in the theater audience to watch the first one, then 18 and on a date for Ghostbusters II. I loved the original, played the song constantly, had the black muscle-shirt (sans muscles), liked the second, and can still watch them both (just saw II again on New Years Eve and there are parts I still quote). But something very interesting happened. I had a daughter. When she was very little, maybe four or five, I introduced her to Ghostbusters. Sure, she was a little young for it and I had my wife and father-in-law questioning if I should let her watch something like that, but she loved it. I don't recall if she watched the second one at all during this time, but she watched the first one over and over and over.
By the time she was six, the 2016 movie came out. We did wait for streaming, but we all watched it together. I was a little underwhelmed, but didn't hate it. I love the cast and really enjoyed Feig's other McCarthy movies, but it just lacked something. HOWEVER, my daughter began to refer to it as "My Ghostbusters." Whenever she sees something with Melissa McCarthy in it, she says "Look, it's Abby!"
Five years later, I now have a son who's old enough for Ghostbusters and Afterlife comes out. Again, I like that they did something different with it, had the old characters back and the new characters grew on us. It, too, was a little underwhelming, but overall we liked it and have seen it several times since. And yes, the end makes me tear up a little. It got me.
Which brings us to Frozen Empire. My daughter is a full-blown Stranger Things fanatic now. The Funko Pops are all lined up in her room of all the characters in multiple variations. She saw a trailer for the new GB and as soon as Slimer gets Finn Wolfhard, she said "Haha, take that, Mike!" She's going to see this as a fan, not just a fan of the original, but of the series that she also grew up with (and a fan of certain young cast members). I exposed her to a lot of movies I grew up on and some are in her constant rotation. Being able to have children who, at only 13 and 9, know the Ghostbusters series very well - my daughter even met Dan Ackroyd when she was little while wearing a GB t-shirt - and can appreciate it as a series is making me look forward to the new one.
I think most movies that are part of a known IP or brand (like random Marvel movies) have an almost unfair amount of expectations going in. And the reviews have ranged from good to poor, so it like a lot of things must be pretty subjective. I may not see it in the theaters, gotta save a little bit of cabbage these days - last time I took just the kids to a movie, the whole shebang cost around $75 - but we will see it.
I think there are many things that are true about Ghostbusters in general.
1. The 2016 reboot was largely, but not completely, sunk by a bunch of pathetic man-children, the type of people (who I didn't realize existed until well into adulthood) who won't read, watch, or play something with a female main character because "they can't identify with her."
2. The 2016 reboot was bad and the casting was bad (I can't get with Kate McKinnon being a star; she's a slightly above-average comic who works very, very hard to get her laughs). If you give me an all-women Ghostbusters team with, like, Tina Fey, Kaitlin Olsen, Amy Poehler, and Tiffany Haddish, I'm in that theater all day, even if the script sucks (like 2016 Ghostbusters's script did).
3. Ghostbusters was a one-off phenomenon, two-off if you're counting the surprisingly good '80s cartoon follow-up. It was not meant for franchising or sequelization.
4. Ghostbusters 2 sucked, but at least it sucked somewhat memorably. This latest Ghostbusters reboot pair of movies seem like they were written and cast by a malevolent AI.