I have no problems with being proven wrong and taking a delicious, if familiar, slice of humble pie. Surprises are one of the great things in film because, with such low expectations (or no expectations), a film can suddenly radiate on it's own merits instead of it's own hype.
The 2016 remake of Ghostbusters however, appears to have done everything in it's power to make me hate it in it's marketing. After two decades of waiting for a third film to simply not happen (despite the 2009 game being better than anyone could have ever imagined), Sony's decision to remake the '84 classic simply made no sense.
Whilst Ghostbusters has it's minor faults, it certainly wasn't a story that needed to be retold. Superhero movies get away with it because their established cannon in the medium of comics is so convoluted at this point, that it gives room to expand on character developments in separate retellings as most characters have multiple origins.
But with Ghostbusters, the film was already entrenched in the public conscious for three decades and would make any remake an uphill struggle. Whilst casting gender opposites would at least put-off some of the inevitable criticisms and comparisons to the original cast, casting four female leads and declaring it a decision against equality is, not only hypocritical (if the film was truly equal, it should be a mixed team), but politicizing a situation and chastising those with a differing opinion would only add more fuel to the fire.
You might think that it's idiotic to blame a film for the actions of a vocal group of fans and bandwagon riders and normally you'd be right. But thanks to Wikileaks and the excellent series of documentaries by Midnight's Edge on the film's production; this climate has been a plan of Sony; to politicise a film to make it a must-see for a demographic of people who feel a duty to defend the film from anyone, as failing to do so will stop women's progression in the film industry.
Personally; I couldn't care less who is cast in the film, as long as they're entertaining. Heck, as an embarrassing footnote, I watched the mid-nineties cartoon Extreme Ghostbusters which had the most progressive and stereotypically diverse team imaginable and liked it (even with the daft name) on the merits of the series' characters, because they were entertaining, regardless if they were a goth woman, a black man, a handicapped man or a french man.
But the moment the first trailer hit, everything looked wrong. The lighting was brightly coloured and made the film look cheap and lacking atmosphere and tension. The special-effects looked dreadful; the aforementioned lighting combining with neon-coloured ghosts to create something that looked ok in 2002 with Scooby Doo, but unacceptable for a film with twenty years of anticipation.
The jokes were either dull or the equivalent of loud noises. Lesley Jones' character in particular was a racist caricature that seemed to exist for sass and shouts. Whilst I didn't think Bridesmaids wasn't the world-beater that other critics dubbed it (minus Wiig, McCarthy and anything with the Labradors), it was, for the most part funny and director Paul Feig at least sounded like a smart choice as a man who could direct ensemble comedies to modern audiences.
But the trailer offered nothing re-assuring. It looked terrible, it sounded terrible and unless the trailer was just a huge misstep, it looked like a looming disaster.
What followed was months of chastising by various actors, director Feig himself and other personalities who claimed anyone who hated the film was a sexist troll. Even if the criticisms never mentioned the actresses' gender, you were a troll, pure and simple.
Then the revelation of Sony actively deleting legitimate criticism of the film on youTube but leaving the sexist ones came to light and this only lowered my expectations.
This came to a head when James Rolfe; an Internet personality who's earliest breakthrough a decade earlier was a three part retrospective on old Ghostbusters games and was a fan of the franchise, made a video saying, after watching the trailers, he didn't want to see the film.
He never mentioned anything sexist and said, in the simplest terms; the film looked bad and to save the countless emails and requests for comments of the film, he wasn't going to see it.
What followed was a plague of celebrities, publications, other critics and trolls bashing Rolfe for having an opinion. It was just as pathetic as the sexist comments that they said they stood against and the hypocrisy was astounding.
Rolfe had many of the same problems that I had with the film's marketing and seeing the backlash against him made me feel even more opposed to the film, as in some deranged way, not seeing it as this point and not contributing to it's revenue would force the studio to be accountable for this possible bomb.
But despite this; I still wanted to see Ghostbusters. I grew up with the franchise and Sony already had me, as a plumb and gullible bird in the hand.
It surely, couldn't be as bad as it's most vocal detractors and critics had claimed it. At it's worse, it was probably going to be an average, loud comedy that never had a chance of surpassing the original, but at least had some good performances and decent jokes.
Maybe, against the odds, the film would be a misunderstood classic, let down by poor trailers and one I would like see an expanded franchise on. Something the original pair of Ghostbusters films never got.
Surely, it couldn't be that bad.
H
@Retcon_Nation
You might think that it's idiotic to blame a film for the actions of a vocal group of fans and bandwagon riders and normally you'd be right. But thanks to Wikileaks and the excellent series of documentaries by Midnight's Edge on the film's production; this climate has been a plan of Sony; to politicise a film to make it a must-see for a demographic of people who feel a duty to defend the film from anyone, as failing to do so will stop women's progression in the film industry.
Personally; I couldn't care less who is cast in the film, as long as they're entertaining. Heck, as an embarrassing footnote, I watched the mid-nineties cartoon Extreme Ghostbusters which had the most progressive and stereotypically diverse team imaginable and liked it (even with the daft name) on the merits of the series' characters, because they were entertaining, regardless if they were a goth woman, a black man, a handicapped man or a french man.
But the moment the first trailer hit, everything looked wrong. The lighting was brightly coloured and made the film look cheap and lacking atmosphere and tension. The special-effects looked dreadful; the aforementioned lighting combining with neon-coloured ghosts to create something that looked ok in 2002 with Scooby Doo, but unacceptable for a film with twenty years of anticipation.
The jokes were either dull or the equivalent of loud noises. Lesley Jones' character in particular was a racist caricature that seemed to exist for sass and shouts. Whilst I didn't think Bridesmaids wasn't the world-beater that other critics dubbed it (minus Wiig, McCarthy and anything with the Labradors), it was, for the most part funny and director Paul Feig at least sounded like a smart choice as a man who could direct ensemble comedies to modern audiences.
But the trailer offered nothing re-assuring. It looked terrible, it sounded terrible and unless the trailer was just a huge misstep, it looked like a looming disaster.
What followed was months of chastising by various actors, director Feig himself and other personalities who claimed anyone who hated the film was a sexist troll. Even if the criticisms never mentioned the actresses' gender, you were a troll, pure and simple.
Then the revelation of Sony actively deleting legitimate criticism of the film on youTube but leaving the sexist ones came to light and this only lowered my expectations.
He never mentioned anything sexist and said, in the simplest terms; the film looked bad and to save the countless emails and requests for comments of the film, he wasn't going to see it.
What followed was a plague of celebrities, publications, other critics and trolls bashing Rolfe for having an opinion. It was just as pathetic as the sexist comments that they said they stood against and the hypocrisy was astounding.
Rolfe had many of the same problems that I had with the film's marketing and seeing the backlash against him made me feel even more opposed to the film, as in some deranged way, not seeing it as this point and not contributing to it's revenue would force the studio to be accountable for this possible bomb.
But despite this; I still wanted to see Ghostbusters. I grew up with the franchise and Sony already had me, as a plumb and gullible bird in the hand.
It surely, couldn't be as bad as it's most vocal detractors and critics had claimed it. At it's worse, it was probably going to be an average, loud comedy that never had a chance of surpassing the original, but at least had some good performances and decent jokes.
Maybe, against the odds, the film would be a misunderstood classic, let down by poor trailers and one I would like see an expanded franchise on. Something the original pair of Ghostbusters films never got.
Surely, it couldn't be that bad.
H
@Retcon_Nation
No comments:
Post a Comment