by Daniel Durand
Last night, I bit the bullet and went to the theater to see the movie that’s been causing everyone so much grief online and in social media—Scooby-Doo 2.
Kidding. I saw the Ghostbusters remake. But there were a lot of moments where I thought I was watching one of the live-action Scooby-Doo movies.
Full disclosure, I did not expect to like this movie. I have been a huge fan of the Ghosbusters franchise my whole life, from the movies, to the cartoons, to the comic books. I still remember walking down the road to the local movie rental store with my parents to pick up movies and snacks—Ghostbusters was one of the first movies to become part of that near-weekly ritual, and it was a big part of my childhood. Any movie would have a hard time trying to emulate those experiences.
But, my heart still wears a proton pack, and I had to see this movie, just to be sure.
I’ll start with the positives, because there were a few. Some were expected, such as Kate McKinnon’s portrayal of Dr. Holtzmann, the quirky and possibly insane engineer of the new GB crew. Holtzmann seemed detached from reality in a fashion that seemed half Gene Wilder’s Willy Wonka, and half what Ed from Cowboy Bebop would be like as an adult. Here’s a video if you don’t know who that second character is:
Holtzmann was, to me, the only character that really stood up to any of the originals. I felt like she was less of a replacement for Egon Spengler, the original gadget guy, and more of a character of her own that could have just as easily strapped on a pack and gone toe-to-toe with Stay Puft. In a movie that felt watered down and bland, Holtzmann was what kept me watching, and Kate McKinnon had better get a damned award for this.
I also liked that the movie had a couple of original ideas that were not present in the older parts of the franchise.
In the original movie, no one believes that the Ghosbusters are really catching ghosts. The EPA tries to shut them down because, famously, Walter Peck has no dick, and the mayor is only willing to trust the weirdos in slime-covered jumpsuits when he has no other choice.
In Ghostbusters 2016, however, not only do the Ghostbusters not have to prove they aren’t frauds, but it turns out that the government has a special detachment to investigate the paranormal, and the mayor knows all about the existence of ghosts. The mayor still publicly pretends that the Ghostbusters are crazy publicity hounds, but by the end of the movie, the city is actively funding their work as a “just in case” countermeasure against future ghost attacks—pretty much the exact opposite of the mayor’s reaction from the first film.
Also, in the same scene where the new Ghostbusters crew is brought before the mayor, he mentions that one of the strange occurrences on the government investigators’ radar is a whole town being turned inside out—Holtzmann reacts to this news excitedly, much like I did. I don’t know about anyone else, but I would have loved to have seen that in a Ghostbusters movie.
The remake also introduced the concept of ley lines—geographic lines between major landmarks or sites of cultural or spiritual importance—to partly explain why ghosts were being drawn to New York.
A similar concept was used in the Ghostbusters video game that came out for PS3 a few years back, in which the same cult that built the apartment building in the original movie was explained to have also built a series of nodes that channeled ghosts into the city and drew from their power, which was ultimately lured the major baddies from the first and second movies.
Sadly, the ley lines were only mentioned once, and any hope of a larger construct or explanation of the Ghostbusters universe probably died there.
Product placement. Holtzmann carries Pringles, the secretary-savant shows us the 7-Eleven logo as a suggestion for the Ghostbusters crew to use, there’s a slew of logos smattered around the background shots, and references to Papa John’s, Cadillac, and more.
To be fair, the original had tons of product placement (Twinkie anyone?) but I just felt like they handled it better in execution. When Dr. Venkman opens Dana Barrett’s refrigerator to check for ghosts, it’s crammed full of Coke, Perrier, and Oscar Mayer—all things you would expect to find in a refrigerator. But when I watched the remake, and Holtzmann has a tube of Pringles under one arm while she’s filming the first ghost encounter, I just thought it was forced.
A major area that I think caused the overall movie to suffer was that it seemed to stretch on a little too long. You could have safely cut a half-hour from it and probably made the finished product flow better. I love Holtzmann, but did we really need four scenes where she shows off new gadgets, when even Q from the Bond franchise only gets one per movie?
Exacerbating this problem was a cast of redundant characters. The movie opens with an historian, played by Zach Woods, leading a tour of a spooky mansion, which soon becomes the site of the first ghost attack of the movie. But why have a separate character that is an historian knowledgeable about New York City, when Leslie Jones basically sells herself as a worthy member of the new team by talking up her historical chops (and having access to a car that would become the new Ecto-1)? You could have just made Leslie Jones the tour guide, which would have led to her encounter with the Ghostbusters, and cut about five minutes off the movie’s run time.
Even Bill Murray’s cameo as an academic skeptic of the paranormal was redundant—we’d already watched Kristen Wiig get fired from her job as a university physicist by her Ivory Tower asshole of a boss, and then another scene where the Ghostbusters are kicked out of their lab at a different academic institution. Why not just have Bill Murray play Wiig’s boss, and be done with it? Bam! I just cut another eight minutes off the movie!
But I think the main thing about this movie that left me feeling a little empty after the fact was not the poor cameos, or the fart/vagina jokes in the first 15 minutes, or even the goofy, Scooby-Doo special effects—no, it was the attitude of this movie, and knowing that nothing that anyone says will matter.
And no, I don’t mean the knowledge that my words don’t matter. I’m some nobody critic on the internet, and there are thousands like me that mean equally zero. I mean knowing that nobody mattered.
Proof of concept: on opening weekend, Rory Bruer of Sony said in an interview that there was no doubt in his mind that the new Ghostbusters would become a major Sony franchise and have a sequel.
So none of the controversy about this movie really mattered—in fact, even the people who like this movie don’t matter. It seems that the current model for the movie industry right now is to crank out as many reboots as they can, piggybacking off the success of the original, aimed at getting butts in chairs and cramming as many product endorsements in as possible. If you don’t like it, no one cares, have another shit sandwich and shut up.
Any pissed off fans who loved the originals for decades… well, they’re just eggshells to an omelet.
I’d give Ghostbusters 2016 a solid C. It’s passable, and not as bad as the harsher critics said, but it was basically stupid. It could never have stood up to the original with Paul Feig directing, and was too poorly written and cringe-worthy to stand on its own.
I might have given it a B if it were more condensed, or if they had tried more to pass the torch from the original cast, but as it stands, I wouldn’t even recommend it as a DVD purchase to keep your kids quiet for a couple hours. If that’s really all you’re after, buy the original—it’s funnier and will introduce your children to pop culture references that even a lot of 20-somethings don’t get anymore.
Daniel Durand is a writer based in Boise, Idaho, who may or may not be thinking about writing Ghostbusters fan fiction. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.