That's the absurdity of it all right there. So much hatred and anger spewed in all directions, and for what? The backlash would've been the same if they had taken the same remake route with a male cast and did the SNL/modern comedy version of the movie. The fact that they made it a female-led version was just the icing on the cake that invited some nasty people to the party. Just a perfect storm of bad decisions unfortunately. People got so emotionally invested over a truly forgettable movie.
Meanwhile this movie is putting a young girl at the center of it. So to me the idea that somehow this new movie's existence could send a bad message to young girls out there is DOA. I have a feeling they are going to grow the audience for Ghostbusters with Afterlife way more than the 2016 film ever did and turn it into a proper 4 quadrant movie.
The thing these reviewers seem to miss with the criticisms of nostalgia (and I'd include that in recent critiques of Star Wars too), is they think they're saying "shame on you movie- catering to and coddling middle-aged men." But they miss the fact that these are generational films that are passed down. A 10 year old kid who just watched the originals last week is going to enjoy seeing the connections to the originals too. Who doesn't like continuity in their franchises? And I know this, because I have a 10 year old goddaughter who loves GB 1&2 and can't wait for Afterlife.
THIS. All of this. This post here exemplifies my problems with GB2016 and why I'm hyped for Afterlife! I'm really sick to death of all these so-called "professional" critics and people on the Internet who use nostalgia and bringing back old franchises as a criticism. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. It's a way of passing the torch to the next generations, both in-story and audiences, and seeing where they go with it and inspire them to maybe someday play in that universe. I honestly feel the newer Star Wars movies and shows are the best example of this: drawing on stuff we're familiar with (NOT remaking the original trilogy, despite what some morons say) and bringing new heroes and villains into the mix while honoring the heroes and events that came before! The sequel trilogy, in that regard, was a lot more inspired and interesting than George Lucas' convoluted prequel trilogy in comparison (I still think the "that's not how the Force works" was a stealth take that to the whole midi-chlorians BS). It may not have been perfect, but at least they were fun and those involved were trying.
The same can be said for GB Afterlife. Making Egon's grandkids the new leads and having them find out about his old team and taking up the Ghostbusters mantel is a cool idea while also borrowing inspiration from Stranger Things with the younger cast (hell, Finn Wolfhard is in both properties). Surprisingly, I actually had a similar idea years back but with Seth Rogen and his crew (Jay Barchell, Craig Robertson, and Danny McBride) as the nephews or sons of the original team taking up the family business! There's nothing wrong with trying ideas like this to continue an old series like this. You just need solid writing and directing to go with it, and it sounds like this movie has that.
I don't blame them for trying what they did in GB2016. Paul Feig's Bridesmaids is one of the funniest comedies of the last 20 years, The Heat is a contender too. He clearly has an eye for comedy. But Ghostbusters is a very tricky thing. Is not entirely a comedy or entirely horror, it lives in that weird space where it can be both funny and scary. And GB2016 just couldn't find that balance.
Afterlife feels much more in line with the originals, but it also brings something new and different. Tone is key.
Exactly. Feig basically just tried doing Bridesmaids again but with a Ghostbusters layover on it and it didn't work. His whole gender-warfare angle's also what caused it to backfire IMO. You can't go around calling everyone who's whining about your movie pre-release sexist and then come off as sexist towards the male gender in your finalized product. That's hypocrisy at its finest. Feig, in an attempt to portray his team as underdogs, basically made every male character either an *******, a pathetic loser in the case of the main villain Rowan, or an ungodly moron for humor in the case of poor Chris Hemsworth's Kevin (seriously, did Loki get ahold of the script?), and then had Rowan defeated by getting blasted in the dick as a show of "girl power".
The original 2 movies never pulled anything like that. Hell, Dana and Janine, despite being supporting roles, were portrayed as strong women would didn't put up with crap (Janine even got to use a proton pack on occasion in the Real Ghostbusters sequel cartoon). The original GB team were considered underdogs because, not only were they dealing with matters that very few people believed were real until they went into business, but also had jerks like Walter Peck in the first movie and the mayor's weasel of a secretary in the second movie trying to undermine their efforts to protect New York. The odds were stacked against them. Also, Peck and the secretary weren't jerks due to gender; they were jerks because they were tiny, pathetic nobodies out to make themselves look good at the expense of the true heroes and everyone else! That's what Paul Feig didn't seem to understand and still doesn't. The fool has continued to defend his movie to this day and blamed us for its failure, while Jason Reitman's genuinely trying to make it up to the fans and honor his father Ivan's legacy, despite idiots on the Internet grasping at straws to find something to ***** about his movie. You tell me which director has the better grasp on this series?
