Sunday 14 August 2016

Who You Gonna Call? Not Sony Pictures!

A lot of my friends and family have been asking how I feel about the recent Ghostbusters reboot. Having followed the production closely from early on, I have a number of reasons why I've not been overly confident in the picture. The following article will outline some of the backstory which has informed my response to the film, a live Twitter feed of my initial thoughts, and a full review of the film.

I Ain't Afraid Of No Ghosts


For full disclosure, some people might describe me as a Ghostbusters superfan; when I was younger I wore out my VHS copy that my Dad had taped off of the TV -  the TV edit was classic, it contained a terrible edit where Venkman said that Walter Peck had "no Twinkie"!


I had all of the toys and enjoyed Ghostbusters II just as much during my formative years. During my twenties I rediscovered the charm, humour and sheer adventure of the film and my passion was henceforth rekindled. I've since gone on to construct a (mostly) screen accurate Ghostbusters costume and have had the privilege to have met some of the cast and crew of the original film and the 1989 sequel.



I was also fortunate enough to travel to New York city for my 30th birthday and my wife and I managed to visit a number of shooting locations from both films (including the iconic Hook & Ladder No 8 and our hotel was right across the road from the New York Public Library). I've even recorded and produced an alternative version of the classic theme song.




However, this does not mean that I was against the idea of a female-driven reboot when it was first suggested, more that I was cautiously optimistic that it would be a success.

Dropping Off Or Picking Up?


On December 9, 2014, a group called "Guardians of Peace" hacked into Sony's computer system, which led to the theft of internal company documents. These documents were subsequently leaked on the WikiLeaks website. In these emails Sony Pictures Entertainment's Chairperson Amy Pascal was revealed to have been in discussion with Paul Feig (director of Bridesmaids & Spy) about creating a reboot of the Ghostbusters "franchise".

On Sep 7, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Paul Feig wrote:


 Amy,

Here’s my take on it: It’s a reboot of the franchise in a world (our world) that has never actually had any legitimate contact with the ghost world. Our villain ghost is an executed murderer, a Ted Kazinski type (think Peter Dinklage) who has left behind a manifesto of how he wants to change and destroy the world. When his execution is hit by a supercharged electrical storm, he is turned into a powerful ghost able to rouse other villainous spirits from the ghost world to carry out the ever-expanding plans of his manifesto. Our four new female Ghostbusters come together in an origin story that sees them forming a team based on their diverse skills and plays with the invention and trial-and-error of their various Ghostbusting technology and techniques as they try to stop the villain and his ever growing force of evil ghosts, which is a boring way of saying that we’ll see four very different women come together and figure out in funny, scary and action-packed ways how to save New York City and the world.

This first film will deal with this one mission and the formation of our team and the evolution of their hardware and by the end result in them forming their actual Ghostbusters business, versus starting a business mid-film like the original movie. However, I would like to keep their business as a secret government agency in a world where the government has worked hard to cover up the events of this first reboot in order to keep the public from knowing that there is now a possible reoccurring ghost threat over our country. (I’m playing with the idea that, a la Close Encounters, the government stages an evacuation of mid-town Manhattan to keep the public from knowing about the ghost threat, so that even though most of mid-town Manhattan is a mess after the final battle, they are able to explain it away as a gas explosion or something to that effect. This will keep the franchise from having to denounce the Ghostbusters in a sequel or drop them back into a world in which the public is now fully aware of ghosts. This will give the franchise much more longevity. There’s a funny dynamic we want to play with where the government eventually starts working with the Ghostbusters but has to keep denouncing them publicly, having a Cecily Strong type character always saying terrible things about them in press conferences and then apologizing to them behind the scenes, even though her public attacks on them get more and more personal. “I’m sorry, I just have to make it sound convincing.”)

Tonally, the movie will be a bit scarier and more hi-tech than the original and the set pieces will be bigger, while still being very funny. For example, I want in the third act to have the entire police force and army accompany the Ghostbusters to the final battle but since our villain only wants to deal with the Ghostbusters and wants to make the government look ridiculous, he possesses the entire police and army forces and makes them do a big ridiculous dance number in the middle of Fifth Avenue, thus neutralizing them (and delighting himself). I think that having our main villain be both evil and funny in the ways screws with our world as he’s trying to carry out the points of his manifesto (get revenge on everyone who slighted him, humiliate and take down Wall Street, make the United States look ridiculous to the rest of the world and eventually destroy NYC, which to him is the brain of the US), as well as have fun with the ghosts he picks to carry out various tasks (could be all dead villains and famous criminals he recruits from the ghost world and - in what I think could be a billion dollar idea - recruits the ghosts of evil beings from other parts of the universe - yes, ghost aliens! “Our world isn’t the only place in the universe with bad and dangerous beings that have died, you know. There’s a lot of bored dead monsters out there who are just looking for something to do.”)

Anyway, these are all things we’re experimenting with and are looking forward to exploring as we write the first draft. I hope this helps in your lunch.

Break a leg! :0)

Paul

 Now, I was apprehensive when I heard that this was the direction they were going in; NOT because of a gender-swapped cast (although I did think that this was a rather lazy way to make the film different to the original) but because it sounded very much like Paul Feig did not have a firm grasp on what made the original film so successful. 

 Admittedly, in the original film you had to suspend your disbelief that all of these paranormal entities would manifest, but it was the everyman quality of the Ghostbusters and their down-to-earth approach to extraordinary situations that made you relate to and root for the characters. For Feig to introduce a form of SuperGhost was understandable (think Gozer or Vigo), but to introduce ghost aliens almost sounded as if he hadn't learned the lessons that Indiana Jones and The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull had taught (that you can only stretch suspension of disbelief so far before the story loses all integrity).


You Do That And I'll Sue Your Ass For Wrongful Prosecution


Another email featured on WikiLeaks concerns David Steinberg, who is the Executive Vice President for legal affairs at Sony Pictures Entertainment. In this email (below), Steinberg suggests that the studio should seek legal action if Bill Murray was unwilling to take part in the Ghostbusters reboot.

From: Steinberg, David
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:06 PM
To: Venger, Leonard; Weil, Leah
Cc: Yankelevits, Daniel
Subject: Ghostbusters/Murray - Litigation Counsel [CONFIDENTIAL]

In order to more fully evaluate our position if Bill Murray again declines to engage on “Ghostbusters”, AG requested that we identify “aggressive” litigation counsel with whom we can consult to evaluate our alternatives and strategize.  [Harkening back to his prior employer, of course, raised the name of David Boies.] 

Personally, while I’m fine with aggressive, I think we are in much worse shape if this goes public so seems to me we should look for someone who isn’t seeking the spotlight.

Can we discuss at some point soon to provide a suggestion or two?
Thanks.

Source: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704

Now this news surprised me for a number of reasons. It has been well-known in the years that Ghostbusters III was in development-hell that Murray was reluctant to take part unless the story and script were something special. He confirmed that he would take part if his character was killed off near the start of the picture (perhaps returning as a ghost himself), but with the real-life passing of Harold Ramis it seemed that Murray's involvement was finished. 


Whilst I understand the appeal to Sony of having Murray on board, to effectively force him to appear in the remake under the threat of legal action shows how little regard the studio have for the creative talent that they work with. It also shows the lengths that Sony will go to to protect their investment.


Choose The Form Of The Destructor


On 3rd March 2016 the first movie trailer was released, and also uploaded to YouTube. Within 24 hours the number of dislikes far exceeded the number of likes. There were thousands of comments which opined that the trailer was not successful at generating interest in the film, most which were polite but critical. I myself wrote a comment which politely questioned the racial stereotyping of Patti's character and the inclusion of vagina jokes in a film that was widely promoted for raising awareness of equality for women. I could not believe it when less than 24 hours later Sony had deleted my comment along with thousands of other critical comments. 


I subsequently submitted another comment (again, polite but critical) which Sony then deleted. There were admittedly a small number of commentators who wrote comments that were slightly less polite and had some misogynistic overtones. Whilst I wholly condemn any form of misogyny or sexism, the most disturbing thing is that Sony would allow these comments to remain on the video's YouTube page, but legitimate criticism was being deleted so that detractors of the trailer were portrayed as sexist and immature.


This manipulation continued throughout the marketing for the film. The director Paul Feig went on to say that criticism he received after signing on to direct a new version of Ghostbusters was “vile, misogynistic shit” whilst refusing to acknowledge any legitimate criticism of his approach to the project. This also continued in interviews with the cast ahead of the film's release. It was clear that the Sony marketing machine was whirring very fast to make sure that any criticism of the film was labelled as misogynistic when in fact many people (not just Ghostbusters fans) had a more grounded and considered opinion on the film.


Another issue with the marketing for the reboot relates to how much reference there is to the original film(s). Feig and Sony went to great lengths whilst the film was being developed to stress that this is not a sequel and that it is set in a different film universe to the original films, so that these Ghostbusters are the first to develop the technology and strategy to deal with the paranormal menace.

When the first trailer was launched it opened with the title card "30 years ago four scientists saved New York", however if this is in a different universe why bring that up unless you're playing to the nostalgia felt by many people about the original films?

 Also, if it is set in a different universe why ask (or in Murray's case force) the original Ghostbusters cast to make cameos? That would be like Lucasfilm casting Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher in Star Wars The Force Awakens but not as Han Solo or Princess Leia! By extension, if they are only making small cameos in the new film, why feature the original cast so prominently in the marketing for the remake?



It seems very strange to me that a major motion picture studio would attempt to alienate a section of fandom by labelling them as misogynists or nerds living in their parents' basements. Star Wars The Force Awakens was massively successful because Lucasfilm knew that they needed to reach out to fans of the Original Trilogy (hence the excising of many prequel characters and planets) but also they needed to appeal to new fans. 

 Likewise, the 2009 Star Trek reboot appealed to fans both old and new because they integrated the original storylines (or the Prime universe) with the rebooted storylines (or the Kelvin timeline). The fact that Leonard Nimoy fused the two together as Spock Prime showed the respect that the studio had for existing fans of the franchise. 

 From a personal point of view, as an avid fan I feel like Sony has displayed a distinct lack of respect for Ghostbusters fans which I find insulting. They seem to suggest that you must like this film otherwise you are sexist or misogynistic, when they seem to have forgotten how many films in the past have featured strong female protagonists. Newer films with female protagonists such as The Hunger Games or Star Wars The Force Awakens show that although you can have a female protagonist you still need an engaging story and interesting characterisation, not to mention classic films led by women such as Alien, The Silence Of The Lambs, Kill Bill, The Terminator.

Ghostbusters, Whaddya Want?








































































































< imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">




























 

Mother Puss Bucket!


In summary, my opinion of the finished film was predominantly negative. This is not because I am a misogynist, or an immature fanboy, but because the finished product was as I'd feared it would be: not good at all.

I really like the cast of this film. Having seen the chemistry between the four leads during interviews they are very funny and clearly had a great time making the movie. I am also absolutely fine with them being of the female persuasion. Chris Hemsworth is also a fine actor with a keen sense of comic timing. My issue with this film is that the jokes are forced or puerile, or in some cases just downright offensive. It doesn't seem like Paul Feig used his cast to their full potential.

In a panel at the Optimus Convention in Torquay on 1st August 2015, Ernie Hudson stated that when filming the first two movies, they would perform the scene as per the script and then improvise the dialogue around it, giving Ivan Reitman (the director) a variety of options for how to play the scene. With the 2016 rebook/remake, it feels more like they went through multiple script revisions and then only shot the scripted version, thinking that this was the funniest version. Sadly, the humour comes across as very forced and does not have the sense of whimsy that the original had.

The visual effects for this film are clearly what you would expect from a summer tent-pole blockbuster release. Sadly there is little variety of design on display. There are some fantastic concepts (such as ghost subway rats and the ghost flasher) but the repetitive colour palate and limited variation between ghosts suggests that not as much thought went into this as into the 'jokes'.

Whilst I am not overly fond of the new uniforms, the varied and practical applications of the new Proton Packs work really well, and make the conflict in the third act quite interesting.

I'm sure that Sony will commission a sequel, if this film makes any of its money back then they will see the dollar signs and won't be able to resist. Sadly, this Ghostbusters fan will not be supporting them financially by buying the DVD.
 
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)