Reaction videos are weirdly popular online for some reason, but I can't quite do that for the new Ghostbusters trailer. It's not just that I don't actually have a camera to use, but I also just have way too many thoughts. So instead, here I am, writing what will likely be a way-too-long-for-its-own-good reaction piece to the debut trailer.
To begin, though, I must recognize a few things. First, I'm a huge Ghostbusters fan in general. The original film is one of my all-time favorite films (definitely a top five). While I agree with most assessments of the sequel from a logical, analytical breakdown - namely that it's basically just a rehashing of the first - I still really, really enjoyed it and it's one of my favorite sequels. Additionally, I grew up on The Real Ghostbusters animated show, had all the toys (or rather, have all the toys), drank Ecto Cooler (even though it's actually gross), and played a bunch of the video games. One of my favorite jokes I've ever made was a reference to the fact that Winston was cropped out of a shot during the home video release. That should tell you that I'm rather familiar with many aspects of the film and the fictional world it exists within. I know Tobin's Spirit Guide. I can recite Gozer's backstory (during his third itineration, he was a giant slor). And if you asked me what type of ghost Slimer is, I could tell you that what you've got there is a focused, non-terminal repeating phantasm, or a class five full roaming vapor (a real nasty one too).
Right off the bat, it's easy to dismiss any possible negative comments I could make about the new trailer as being that of just a hard-to-please fanboy. Certainly, I would admit that I didn't actually want a new Ghostbusters film to begin with, simply because A) it's Sony and Sony screws almost everything up and B) I don't think as a property, it lends itself to quality work when franchising, that people have maybe under-appreciated just how good of an original film the 1984 movie was.
Here's the other thing worth noting: I desperately want this movie to be enjoyable. I knew from the get-go that it had no shot at surpassing the original (few remakes or relaunches do), but I had hopes. They chose Paul Feig as the director, who I generally like. Then they announced the cast with Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones, Kate McKinnon, and Melissa McCarthy, and I became a bit more concerned, but still hopeful. (We'll get into this in a moment.) At the same time, I don't want this movie to be bad. I'm not actually this smug fanboy who feels superior because he knew that the original was "way better." I want to enjoy this movie, because I am going to see it and I want to enjoy myself. Also, there was so much misguided crap about the casting choice - built almost entirely around the fact that it was going to be all female Ghostbusters - that if this movie bombs or isn't well received, everyone (especially studios) is going to use it as "proof" that "women don't sell movies!" And that's just stupid.
Yet, watching this trailer, mixed with all the things I'd heard from the production, I'm struck with how many red flags this feature has going into it.
1. The cast.
So hear me out. On a surface level, that cast is awesome! I love it as a whole. They're all hilarious women. Many people got weird about it, forgetting that the original Ghostbusters came out from SNL collaborators. It makes sense, and is in the spirit of the original, to cast members or former members of SNL as well.
But the casting of Melissa McCarthy seemed strange and worrisome. Nothing against McCarthy, who I also generally like and find funny, but she's largely been stranded in the slapstick comedy genre. When you think of Ghostbusters, slapstick isn't exactly what pops into your head. What made the first film so great was that it was a surprisingly intelligent comedy. In fact, it wasn't even really an outright comedy. Can't fault people for throwing it in that category, but it wasn't the same as something like, say, Vacation or Caddyshack.
Then there are all of the announced cameos. First of all, knowing that Sigourney Weaver and Bill Murray and Annie Potts are making random appearances kind of spoils the surprise. Second of all, knowing that they're making cameos as other characters makes it strange too. This isn't a sequel, apparently, so there is no Peter Venkman or anyone else in this world, but this also means that these cameos are going to be distracting. People are going to be awaiting the moment these actors show up, and you know what we're going to see? Actors, not characters. It's kind of like how Stan Lee cameos in Marvel are a waste of time and have become something of a game, where everyone is waiting for that moment they can go, "There's Stan Lee!" Who cares what his character is supposed to be doing in that scene! It's all just a "meta-joke."
2. The slapstick.
If the decision to throw McCarthy in was a red flag - again, all due respect to her as one of the top female comedy actors in the business - then the source of comedy in the trailer essentially confirms it. The jokes are...practically non-existent. Instead what we get is two minutes of non-stop slapstick and physical comedy. You get Jones going over the top in her "bitch slapping" McCarthy free of a possessing ghost, adding one super predictable unnecessary hit after she's been freed as "the joke." You've got Wiig just getting vomited on.
Obviously, this movie is going to be loads different, which is a-ok! However, I still reserve the right to be disappointed if it does indeed turn out to be heavy on the slapstick. The original film was actually a pretty smart and well-crafted comedy. Joke structure was a lot more organic, with many jokes coming in very subtly. Overall, the source of comedy wasn't that the film built itself to be funny. Instead, it put wise-cracking, funny, average Joes in what was actually quite the serious situation. It was not constructed like many comedies today, wherein you need to have X number of jokes per minute.
3. The characters.
The strength of the original film is in the way it had some actually pretty well-grounded characters. Egon was maybe something of a caricature, but everyone else was pretty realistic and normalized. No one looked like a cartoon character. Even Ray, the nerdiest of the bunch, was just hyper enthusiastic. Even side characters like Annie Potts's brilliant, yet brief appearances as Janine felt like a real person (although it could be argued she herself is just a New Yorker stereotype).
After re-watching the trailer, I do actually really like the visual look. The ghosts - in my opinion - look pretty solid, and I really totally dig the aesthetic of the equipment, jumpsuits, and definitely love the new Ecto Mobile. The trailer was not without its positives as well. But the character designs seem weird. They look like they are jumping off the page of a comic book or out of the animated shows. On the one hand, when you really think about the tone of the film - based on the trailer - that might actually fit way better. On the other hand, that has to make for a worse and less interesting movie. None of that means it won't be funny or good, but that it just won't have anywhere near the kind of overall quality and staying power of the original.
4. The advertising is already just confusing.
They've said multiple times that this new film will be a complete reboot, not a sequel. That's maybe not the approach I was hoping for, but I understand the logic. The argument goes that they want these characters to feel empowered, that they created their own technology and are their own scientists and they're doing their own thing. That might very well provide better characters over the alternative of having just a bunch of people who simply learned the tools that were already created by other people. It's a bit of a mistake to think of the original film as an "origin story," although it is somewhat. But really, it's better to have the film be about people starting something than continuing where others left off.
However, the trailer starts off with text about how thirty years ago, four scientists saved the world. This is obviously referencing the original Ghostbusters. (As an aside: many have noted that it "wasn't four scientists; it was three scientists and a guy." But was it? Peter Venkman had his PhD in social sciences - psychology and parapsychology. Did that really make him a "scientist"? I know he calls himself that, but there's that great moment where Walter Peck asks him, "What exactly are you a scientist of?" So really, thirty years ago, it was saved by two scientists, a psychologist, and a guy.)
If you've followed production, you know that that title card on the trailer is misleading. It implies that these new Ghostbusters exist in the same one as the old ones. It's clearly a means to target fans of the original. They're drawing a canonical connection that won't actually exist in the film.
More than that, though, is the way they present Leslie Jones's character. Many people - myself included - have wondered why the black woman can't just be a scientist too. The trailer presents her as just this stereotypical black woman who has nothing really to bring to the table except that she knows New York City, since she is an employee of the MTA.
When you dig deeper online, you find comments about how her character is actually a historian as well. That's where her real skills are. While not a scientist, that's still pretty refreshing to see. Winston is a horribly underrated and under-appreciated character in the 1984 film, and he served to ground the other characters and the film (plus provide the religious context that the "scientists" were oblivious too, all because Winston was a grounded character), Jones does not appear to have anything resembling that. In the trailer, she does feel a bit like just a "token black character" to match the racial breakdown of the first film. And yet, they don't cut the trailer in a way that makes her seem particularly valuable to the team. She doesn't look grounded like Winston, so she doesn't appear to serve much narrative function. Despite the fact that she's supposedly a historian, they just present her as someone who knows the city.
Literally, they gloss over the well-educated aspect of Leslie Jones's character to instead paint the picture that the black woman "knows the streets." I'm not entirely sure I understand why they've made some of these decisions to present this film as something it isn't and paint a character as more simple than she is supposed to be.
5. It's still Sony Pictures.
Let's just be real here too: unlike the original film, the new Ghostbusters isn't coming out of any sort of cultural zeitgeist obsessed with the occult. The cultural context won't exist. Instead, this is coming out of Hollywood's need to franchise everything and turn every property into a "cinematic universe." Sony is already working on another Ghostbusters movie that will build off of this one, to hopefully create a cohesive universe and build a solid world.
But when exactly has anyone other than Marvel done particularly well at that? Fox may have just had a massive hit with Deadpool, but we can't forget that it nearly blew its universe with Fantastic Four. Or that Fox has also nearly blown their cinematic universes with X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Even now, with the guiding hand of Bryan Singer, they still seem a little confused as to how to properly build their universe. Warner Brothers hasn't exactly made much headway in their universe building. In the time since they announced Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Marvel has made four films, with a fifth coming just before WB announced the official beginning of their universe.
And, of course, let's not forget about Sony Pictures and their failed attempt to build a Spider-man universe that not only ended up with a bunch of canceled projects; they also had to awkwardly turn to Marvel Studios to help them. With all those hacked e-mails too, they really have not looked like a particularly great or worthwhile movie studio of late. I'm not sure about anyone else, but the fact that they announced they were trying to build a Ghostbusters universe was the biggest red flag possible.
But, to be fair, I do like Paul Feig. I do genuinely like all these actors. It might not exactly be what I would hope for in a Ghostbusters movie, but there's enough reliable talent on this project that I'm able to disconnect the quality of the trailer from the quality of the film. This isn't a Fantastic Four situation, wherein the trailer looked terrible and then the director was not great to begin with, so it was safe to assume the bad trailer equated to a bad film. We'll still have to wait a while to find out if this Ghostbusters is any good, but I think that this trailer is just a really bad trailer.
Judge for yourself. Do you think this is a good trailer? I still think the film is going to be fine, but this is a bad trailer that, in my opinion, is cause for some alarm that maybe it won't be.
No comments:
Post a Comment