It's why it is so popular during big election years.
Recently, I whined a bit too. Not because of Trump's obvious stupidity, but because something dear to my heart. I had gone to see Disney's wonderful Finding Dory, but there was the film's director right up there on the screen and he was, personally, thanking me, for coming to see his movie.
My kvetch? It would be nice that he didn't have to thank me. He could, you know, just make a movie and we'd go.
Sorta like a cornfield out in Iowa with a baseball diamond.
"If you build it, they will come."
My whine was simple and I was taken to task on it. The crux of it was thus: I'm tired of retreads and sequels. But in the space of a Tweet, I cannot detail the depth of my concern or be able to elaborate. The argument they (my friends) made was especially valid and, to some extent, I do agree. They pointed out that Hollywood is playing it safe. It's better to spend the money on something with a seeded fanbase than to put the dough on a novelty. Franchises, like McDonald's and Burger King are dying across the nation, but in the movies, it's what they're looking for. My friends pointed out that it's expensive to see movies, especially with a family of four or more on something that it is not tried and true or remotely true.
I get that.
My argument is still the same, however. There needs to be more originality in Hollywood and less business. If we look at from a business aspect? Yes, I get it. I don't, however, have to like it. And I don't want to be thanked before every picture.
I'm smart. I like novelty and new and art. This is all very easy for me to say and believe this. I think people go to sequels and reboots for these reasons, but, also, because there's nothing else out there to go see. Original titles do seem to jump to the screen during the Oscar run. So there is that.
I should also point out, reboots and sequels do have a place in my universe. Please, where would my soul be without the Star Wars saga? Porn itself is terribly repetitious, really a bit "hard" to find something new in that genre, ahem. Same with horror movies. But, sometimes, just sometimes, the character is befit a sequel. We want to take the journey again.
I also think of that one time I ended up a teacher's aid and projectionist for a Film Appreciation course.
I took the final, passed, and they let me stay, ahem to earn some money.
Anyhowitzer, we played the movie North-By-Northwest and several people in the audience noticed that Eva Marie Saint had on heels during a pivotal chase scene. They could not embrace the time and the fact that, when this movie came out, Hitchcock movies tended to have juicy roles for women when such things were rare (and, sadly, still are...but we'll elaborate about that in a minute). It led to a moment in the film where she fell, which lead to an increase in the tension on the face of Mount Rushmore-but those in the audience, whilst liking the movie, had not reached that level, yet.
And I learned, as I saw that happen from my little booth above the classroom, that reboots could do something very powerful. Imagine if that audience had seen a reboot with much of the same key elements thrown in. That audience would really 'get it.'
They can introduce and update classics to a new audience. Hitchcock, in my belief, would be awesome to remake nowadays. His themes about the loss-of-self and identity theft are perfect in our digital world. With a handsome lead like Tom Cruise on vacation with his wife in Morocco and someone runs up to him on whispers in his ear and then is killed-puft The Man Who Knew Too Much. Channing Tatum flirts with a nice young lady at a PetSmart before heading home to visit on his weekend with his daughter in Bodega Bay, bringing a pair of cute little lovebirds he purchased. The young lady leaves PetSmart, googles the name on the credit card and starts to follow. And gets attacked by birds in the parking lot as she pulls into town to get gas. BOOM! The Birds returns. Do it in 3-D and in Imax. Get a maximum scary soundtrack and release it in July, with air conditioning blasting.
See? It has a place.
When it's thought out.
Which brings us to this week's review: Ghostbusters.
No new title. No "The Next Generation." No Part two, three, or four or whatever.
Just a reboot.
And not a very good one. It's, well, it's alright. I really wanted to like this movie; I wanted it to prove me wrong. I'm always rallying that there needs to be more women's roles out there. And when I heard this was coming, I was geared.
'Cause I love ghosts, too. A strong cast was listed, but, well, the whole set up was awkward.
And it didn't play to their strengths.
It exists in a world where there is no Ghostbusters, so they were starting up from scratch. In it, someone, a random character is trying to bring about the usual Apocalypse, but by making accelerated machines that bring spirits over to this plane of existence.
And our characters figure out the scheme.
They have cool equipment, to be sure, but it's not really explained. It makes me wonder if the writers were given the script as an assignment, like homework for school, and just followed the outline that the teacher gave them. In no short order, the assignment for the script asked for:
logo generation
equipment creation
the end of the world
places for cameos that do not further the story
no onscreen deaths, even if we're talking about ghosts
no scares, since kiddos need to buy the toys
special car
firehouse where it happens
a visit by the mayor
All the things that happened in the first movie.
Ideally a few ways could ahve been approached. Make it sequel-that ghosts don't exist any more, but are slowly coming back. How's about it's original in the fact that the bad guy actually helped develop some of the tech they are using?
Humor is lacking but comedy is based on conflict, but all of the characters get along, so there's nothing there. Chris Hemsworth has some fun by showing up as the blond secretary, playing against horrible female stereotype (and nice part of the film, actually). But the two best friends who separated, Melissa Macarthy (who I adore, but here just complains) and Kirsten Wiig (who I also adore, but does nothing particularly funny-was she supposed to be the straight man) just don't click.
I will say that that Kate McKinnon is a surprise to behold. She takes something that could be stock and turns it into a random, confident, event. Get this young person in more movies, people. She's magnetic. Also a nice surprise? Leslie Jones. An SNL alum, gets a pretty poorly written character. African American, she's appears uneducated and that bothered me. But, again, there's a personality there and she doesn't come off as one-note. She, too, needs more screen time, SOMEWHERE. I liked her, despite everything. I would like to have known why she suddenly felt kinship with the rest of the cast. Instead, she just shows up, asks for help on something she observed, and....joins the team.
Huh?
It's these kinds of plot loopholes that make the tale fall sour.
It's not a total loss. Like I said, these stars are massively likeable, so it's like hanging out with old friends. And since it's a reboot, that works too.
And special effects wise, this was a beauty to behold.
But I'm still stuck on why did the bad guy use ghosts to bring the end times?
The whole thing is awkward. Don't get a comedy writer to write a ghost story, I guess.
Yes, I'm looking at you, Kevin Smith. And, apparently you, Paul Frieg.
So it, too, is the middle of the road. I'm kinda hoping for a sequel, thinking they can get another run at this. They have great performers, images that are awesome. But, yet again, poor writing drags it all through the mud. ARGH!
