There are innumerable articles and blogs out there addressing the
troubles and woes of Hollywood rebooting everything they have ever made, and
lately it seems that studios are trying harder than ever to cash in on the
nostalgia of the past. I’m not going to rant about why this doesn’t need to be
done. Instead, I’m going to focus on the misuse of the term “reboot” and how
that directly, or indirectly effects what the studio is trying to do versus
what the fans are expecting. More specifically, I’m going to address the new Ghostbusters film currently in
production under the direction of Paul Feig for Sony. Please note that I’m not
going to bash what I haven’t seen. I will also not whine and lament specific issues
unless they directly relate to my topic (something other critics seem to forget
to do).
Sony is one of the
most notorious offenders when it comes to trying to take an existing property
and do it all over again. Besides Ghostbusters,
they are about to embark on a third big-screen iteration of Spider-Man (another
bit of source material I hold near and dear). Briefly, studios taking another
shot at a movie is nothing new—The Maltese
Falcon was released in 1931, and again in 1941 (the latter being the more
infamous for starring Humphrey Bogart). Though in last fifteen years, it seems
that executives are more focused on trying to continue a franchise that on one
involved in the original is willing to be involved with, so they decide to “reboot
it.” But I think that this terminology is completely wrong! What they are doing
is a remake, not a reboot.
Think of it this way:
if you “reboot” your computer because it isn’t working right, when it comes
back on everything should be pretty much the same as it was, right? Same
programs, same background, same settings. All you’ve done is restart your experience
from the beginning, with the knowledge that it will be the same. Imagine how
pissed you’d be if, when the screen came back to life, only the names of the
files had stayed the same. I’m talking about new background, settings, and even
new images representing your common icons. How frustrating would it be to spend
several minutes looking for the familiar internet icon, only to discover that
it had been completely replaced by the image of a tree for no defined reason?
The same thing is true for movies, and it is the main reason why fans of the
original source material are usually so upset when they learn that things are
being changed in the “reboot.” The studio isn’t rebooting, they are remaking;
but the term “remake” gained such a negative connotation ten years ago, that
they had to come up with something new. However it correct it may be.
Now, getting back to Ghostbusters, it’s time to take a look
at why lots of fans are more than a little ticked off.
For the last 25 years,
there have been talks about a third film in the Ghostbusters franchise. Dan Aykroyd always said that he and
co-writer and co-star Harold Ramis were working on a script and that they were
in talks with the studio. But mostly, it was understood that this was his go-to
answer. Then, a few years ago, major headway was being made revolving around a third
film with the original cast. All of this stemming from not only the 25th
anniversary of the first film’s release, but also the huge success of the video
game (that featured the voices of the original cast). The script was, as
always, being polished and Ivan Reitman, who directed the first two films, was
onboard to get behind the camera. This news, however, was taken with a grain of
salt for the die-hard fans, because they (read: we) had been hearing the same
thing for a quarter century. But then the talk kept going, and it seemed the
only real hang-up was with Bill Murray reprising his role of Dr. Peter Venkman.
Then Harold Ramis
passed away. Not only was half of the
creative force behind the characters gone, but the fictional brains of the
outfit was gone, too (Ramis played the dry-witted Egon Spengler). Then Ivan
Reitman left the project. Then many others involved in spearheading the third film
left as well. And it the idea should have died right then, and Sony should have
been just as happy raking in all the cash from releasing merchandise with the
logo on it. Yet, as the studio proved with Spider-Man, they weren’t ready to
give up on the already sunk ship. Not when they could spin it and make it a
submarine. So the studio announced they were moving forward with the franchise
and that they were seeking a new director.
And now for the real
trouble with calling this venture a “reboot” and not a remake.
Almost as soon as Paul
Feig came aboard to direct, it was revealed that he was going to have an
all-female cast. The director also went out of his way on social media to put
fans’ minds at ease, saying that his was going to be a completely new story
with new characters and that it would exist in a world that did not coincide
with the world of the first films. He was going to remake everything from the
ground up so that there was no link between the two franchises. But that wasn’t
exactly the case.
I won’t speculate on
why certain decisions were made over others, but I’ll bet that the studio executives
were plenty pushy for him to go in one direction over another so as best to promote
brand-recognition. And specifically, you can’t make a Ghostbusters movie
without five very important things: 1) the logo 2) proton packs 3) the car 4)
ghosts and 5) the song. Sadly, though, since Feig had spent so much time saying
that he was going to distance his story from the original films that every time
new information is released about this new version, it is unclear exactly how “original”
his version is going to be. I believe this could have been avoided if they hadn’t
used the term “reboot.” Let me breakdown the five essential items for a
Ghostbusters story and then actually “reboot” them, using a correct definition
of “reboot.”
The logo. It is among
the most recognizable symbols on earth. A plump specter who looks a little
surprised to be trapped behind a red “No” icon. Styled after all of the No
Smoking signs that started popping up in New York in the 1980s, the no-ghost
logo is brand marketing at its finest. It is simple, saying everything you need
to know in a single image. It is also cheap to print on white paper—requiring
only red and black ink. It is the strongest and most obvious link to the
original. This is also probably one of the biggest issues he studio is pushing
on this film so that it connects the brand to the merchandise. In actuality, it
is just a lazy copout.
To fix this problem,
all they had to do was spend a little time researching the design phase of the
logo and go from there. While not exactly the well-known icon that is known
today, there were a few designs that both are similar yet altogether different.
One of my favorites was a much more menacing ghost, with his arms raised to
frighten, being held back by a X. Still says the same thing, only separates the
films. Really, Sony could have done anything and earned a bit more respect than
reusing the classic symbol as nothing more than a consumer fishing lure. Again,
this whole thing is all about “reboot” versus “remake,” and the inclusion of
the logo screams remake!
The proton packs. They
are the single most important tool for the capture and elimination of paranormal
entities. Not to mention the first item on many a childhood Christmas list in
the mid-1980s. The pack is bulky, unsymmetrical, and just looks like it was
welded together in the basement of a mad scientist. It is supposed to look
dangerous and complicated. Yet, the new props from the film are, while not
direct copies, are close enough to the original that there isn’t anything
special about them. Yeah, they’re a little smaller (more comparable to the
female form wearing them?), but overall they fit the audiences’ preconceived notion
of what a ghost-busting backpack should look like—they fit the design of a “rectangle
with some boxes and wires and things, and a big round thing on it.” With the
release of the images of this new design, it seems that the production is
refusing to challenge the viewers to look at something original and just accept
that it works in the same way as the design that came before. In 1984, no one
had any idea what these devices did, or how they worked. Then, the characters
on screen shot an unstable orange beam forked with blue lightning at a ghost,
and the audience was like “Oh, okay. Looks cool,” and I kind of wish there had
been more images released of the pre-production phase. There was a missed
opportunity to address the proton packs in a way that modernizes them and still
keeps the whole wacky, unbelievable science.
My recommendation
would have been to streamline the design by taking all that gangly bulk and
shoving it neatly into a stylish and sleek shell. Think of it like a computer.
It’s an unassuming box, but when you take the box away, it’s a total mishmash of
circuit boards, wires, and alien-looking technology. Or what about a high-end
sports car? Imagine what a Lamborghini looks like without the shell. It’s a
weird-shaped frame with an obtuse motor hung in the back with some tires. But
put what is essentially the body of a spaceship on it and you’ve really got something.
For me, the proton packs should be no different. We live in a high-tech world
where one of the characters could have easily 3-D printed a nice looking case to
house all that sceincey stuff, so that when the casing is removed (to make
repairs or whatever), we see inside at all the congested and ugly parts—which might
also be a clever visual metaphor for the character who designs them.
Yet another way to
update the proton packs and (if they absolutely must) reference back to the
original films, though much more slightly, would be to have these characters
use Dan Aykroyd’s original plan where the Ghostbusters sport sleek backpacks
that have wires running to wands extending from their wrists. Not only does
this give true fans a glimpse of what might have been back in 1984, but truly embraces
what Hollywood wants us to think they mean when they say “reboot.”
The car. Yet another
visual icon of the original film, the Ecto-1 is a ghost-white ambulance/hearse
from 1959, with bright red tailfins and trimmed in gleaming chrome. Blue
emergency lights swirl ethereally as the siren wails its haunting call. It is
also one of the better un-sung gags of Ghostbusters
in that four live guys are riding around in a vehicle used to transport the
dead while on their way to deal with the dead, who may have had their previous
ride in that car (do you see the genius of that little joke?). So when production
began on Feig’s version, he said that he was exploring all options for the kind
of transport his team of paranormal eliminators would be using. Alas, it was
recently revealed that the four Ghostbusters would once again canter about in
an old hearse—only this one from the 1980s instead of the 1950s—with a bunch of
unspecified crap thrown on top that the story won’t relate what it does or why
it is there. Again, I think this is a major stumble for this production with so
many kinds of vehicles to choose from.
My idea for the new
Ecto-1 would be anything but a hearse. Just from a purely comfort standpoint,
they only really seat two, since the back has been designed to hold a coffin.
The original Ecto-1 was actually an ambulance, evidenced by the additional
seating in the rear compartment and the sliding rack the team utilized to hold
their proton packs as they drove. So, if the crew wanted to “update” the idea
of the team’s mode of transportation, why not pick one of the 1980s ambulances
that had been a converted cargo van? I mean, that way they still get the
accompanying lights and siren, as well as storage and extra seating, but they
also get the added gloriousness of painting a mural on the side. And honestly,
what says “1980s vehicle” more than a van with an epic mural painted on the
side? Hey, it worked for Star Trek
and Star Wars:
The ghosts. Actually,
I’m giving Feig & Co. free license to do as they please here. The specters
in the original films were a nice combo of silly and scary. Part Disney and
part Lovecraft. What that did, in effect, was to distance the audience from the
realization that these things had once been living people. Reitman took the
humanity out of them so they seemed more unearthly and right so. Who wants to
sit and ponder the notion that Grandpa’s spirit has just been confined for all
eternity to a laser containment grid? It just isn’t fun. As long as the new
movie does its best to make the ghosts something we want to see be gotten rid
of, they should be fine.
The song. Oh, the
song. The original was written and performed by Ray Parker Jr. and it is a
classic. It has been remade so many times over the decades that no one really
cares who you’re going to call anymore, just so that won’t have to ask. The
brilliance was the catchy question-and-answer. The song literally screamed the
name of the movie every five seconds. Again, it’s great marketing. As of now,
though, there has been no information regarding the music for the new film, and
I doubt that they will have a final decision much before the movie actually
premieres. After all, Ray Parker Jr. wrote and recorded Ghostbusters over the course of a weekend, like a month before the
film debuted. Though I’d bet dollars to donuts that some version of “Who you
gonna call?” will appear somewhere on the title track of the CD (do they even
make those anymore?”
What I’ve tried to
express in the above isn’t what I find wrong with forthcoming Ghostbusters, but instead that this is a
remake. Paul Feig is telling his version of the story we all already know. If
it was a reboot, then it would be four guys named Peter, Ray, Egon, and
Winston, battling the supernatural forces of Zuul, minion of Gozer. What Gus
Van Sant did with Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho
in 1998 was a “reboot.” And maybe that’s the problem in Hollywood, more than
just them running out of ideas.
It seems like every
director who is given an existing project to work on has to tell their version
of the character. I’m going to pick on superheroes for a minute because they
seem to be the most obvious offender to me. Just think about how many times you’ve
seen Bruce Wayne’s parents die. I know for me, it has been more than ten. So much
so that I’ve become desensitized to it and the importance for the character
loses its meaning. The same thing is true for the origin of Superman, and
Spider-Man is no different. Every time a new director shoots a movie about
these characters, we have to suffer through the boring inevitability of their
tragic and up-coming loss. These characters are more than 50 years old and they
have had hundreds of thousands of adventures, yet we as the audience get to see
the same story told again and again and again. Even when they try to tell a new
story, like in Bryan Singer’s Superman
Returns, we have to spend several minutes in a completely unnecessary
flashback about a young Clark learning to control his powers (which was used in
this particular film as nothing more than a metaphor for a young teenage boy
coming to terms with his self-realized homosexuality). And this is the problem
that I think Feig is going to run into with his “version” of Ghostbusters. He’s trying to tell the
story that everyone knows, but changing it up enough to seem updated and
original for the times.
“Rebooting” a
franchise does not actually breathe new life into an entity that already has a
steady and devout fanbase. It angers them. This film specifically has caused
heated debates about gender roles and sexual oppression, and it wasn’t supposed
to. The original Ghostbusters was not
a platform for political expression. I mean, the biggest metaphor in the whole
thing is the giant marshmallow man representing how we are being crushed to
death by consumerism—and that is one overt metaphor!
For me, the problem
lies in my inability to come up with an idea for a solution on how to fix the
endless rebooting and refreshing and reimagining. There will always be generic
plots that will be told and retold, but have we really reached the nexus of
human creativity in artistic cinema? I remember when movies with multiple
sequels (Friday the 13th; A Nightmare on Elm Street; Jaws) were laughed at and endlessly
parodied—and most of them were horror films. But now, Hollywood has proven that
they aren’t really interested in making a movie that does not have franchise
potential. But, to be honest, when I look at my DVD rack, I see a lot of things
with sequels. The Back to the Future series, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Rambo,
The Terminator, Superman, Toy Story, Die Hard. I can’t help but realize that
this isn’t a new problem. The new problem is that these movies that already
told their stories, and then continued those stories, are now having their
stories retold. To put it simply, every successful film is a contender to have
a part two made, continuing the story—or just telling a new story with the same
characters. Robert Zemeckis never actually intended to do a sequel to Back to the Future. The original ending
had the time machine fly at the camera and then cut to black. It wasn’t until
the film did so well that they put “To Be Continued. . .” before the credits on
the home video release.
But I digress, and I
said I wouldn’t.
As fans of popular
franchises, or just fans of original cinema altogether, the only way to
actually get executives to stop remaking our favorite films is to actually stop
going to see the remakes. If you are against the remake of Ghostbusters, then don’t go see it. But that won’t happen. Because
as fans, we’re curious.
My suggestion is that
we stop calling things a “reboot.” It just sounds dumb. I mean, why for the
love of God, does Spider-Man need a second reboot? We should instead be
fighting more for a change in terminology when it comes to what they are really
doing. And yes, the Spider-Man movies are basically the closest thing to
cinematic reboots that I can think of besides Psycho. I think more directors should follow in J.J. Abrams’
footsteps and take a story that everybody knows and literally turn it around so
that it is something new and explosively fresh, like what he did with Star Trek.
Short of boycotting
remakes/reboots we don’t want or like, there isn’t anything that can be done to
stop them. Getting online and arguing about it doesn’t help. It only makes
those involved defensive and angry.
Let’s all just sit
back and relax and enjoy the show. This isn’t a new phenomenon. It is only just
more prevalent because the films many of us grew up on are now having their turn.
