Ghostbusters (2016)

2016 will be remembered for a lot of things; the insane amount of entertainment deaths that we've had to endure will probably be at the top, the Rio Olympics and the Z-virus (not be confused with the T-Virus of the Resident Evil franchise) and, of course, the great Neckbeard Vs. Girl Power Internet War Over The Ghostbusters Reboot and the debates it spurred . . . okay, maybe not so much that last bit, but I bet $2 that it'll receive a decent blurb in the year-in-review special edition of Entertainment Weekly.


There's a line in Ghostbusters II, as the Titanic arrives and countless ghostly zombies exit from an ice berg-sized hole in the hull, where one dock worker says to the other with a shrug, "Better late than never".  That line resonated with me as I finally caught Paul Feig's 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters yesterday for a couple of reasons; namely because I was finally seeing it more than a month and a half after its release, as it's now been deemed a failure with its $124 million + box office haul (on a budget of $144 million) and is rapidly leaving theaters -- there was only one somewhat local theater still showing it by me.  And, of course, the fact that, after 27 years, we're finally getting another Ghostbusters film -- be it a reboot, remake, somewhat sequel. 


Be warned:  There will be spoilers here.  Since the film has been out long enough and those of you who care to see it, probably already have....so, yeah...SPOILERS.


The film starts off familiar enough with a quick haunting at a historic museum, thereby setting the plot into motion.  From there, the focus shifts to Dr. Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) on the campus of Columbia University, where she's aiming for tenure and to be taken seriously -- despite trying to distance herself from a book about the paranormal which she co-authored with childhood friend Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) many moons ago.  It's this book that brings the two estranged friends back together as the manager of the museum reaches out to Erin for help with his haunting problem.  New to the team is Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon), who is now Abby's quirky assistant in paranormal research and a Jane of All Trades when it comes building equipment.  Again, things take a familiar turn as the trio see their first ghost and the seeds are planted for them to go into business for themselves. 


Meanwhile, across town, MTA booth operator Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones) encounters one subway weirdo too many and winds up seeing a ghost of her own.  This leads her to contact the Erin and Abby for help and, in the spirit of the original, Patty ends up joining the group before they get their first call to action. 


From here, the film follows some of the basic story beats of the 1984 original; the team gets their "home" (above a Chinese restaurant) and their own Ecto-1 vehicle, catches their first ghost, gains notoriety...and then is immediately debunked and silenced by the Mayor of New York and his team.  Here's where the film starts to veer off into its own being which, honestly, works to its advantage in that it's not merely retreading familiar ground with the story.  Sure, there are some very remake-like beats that occur -- such as the film's villain becoming the size of the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man and destroying the city -- but it's all in fun. 


One interesting angle on the story that I picked up on is that, well, for this team of Ghostbusters, business isn't exactly booming.  They catch one ghost, are immediately silenced and debunked in the media, and wind up letting the bastard go in error!  All the while, a standard Hollywood Blockbuster villain plot forms between the lines; Rowan, a down-trodden nerdy misfit with a huge interest in the paranormal, hatches a devious plot to basically cleanse all humanity of its filth by opening a portal to the Afterlife and unleashing the undead to wreak havoc.  Sounds like fun, doesn't it?  Although, this is probably the film's weakest piece, as it veers so much from what the original two films were about and feels too much like every other Summer Blockbuster with a Scooby-Doo villain and scheme.  However:  here, it works fine. 


Okay my fellow thirty-somethings, let me say this:  I enjoyed Ghostbusters (2016) and -- *gasp* -- my childhood is STILL intact.  (read that last bit with the same intonation as Bill Murray saying "...and the flowers are still standing!")  I was born in 1982 and, while I wouldn't immediately say that I grew up on Ghostbusters, I definitely grew up on the The Real Ghostbusters cartoon series and the toys . . . my God, the endless amount of toys that I had!  Falling in love with the original movie was merely an extension of my love for all things Ghostbusters in the late 80s and early 90s.


For long-time fans who have been clamoring for a "proper" sequel, there are many, many shout-outs and nods to the stuff we grew up with . . . allow me to list some:  a statue bust of the late Harold Ramis -- which, I'll say, is definitely supposed to be Egon Spengler, given its location -- in the halls of Columbia University, the PKE Meter that Abby uses early in the film is clearly modeled after the one from The Real Ghostbusters and so much like the role-playing toy that came with the Proton Pack accessory we all had, the familiar sound effect when the team starts up their Proton Packs, various winking lines of dialogue that hardcore fans would instantly pick up on, and of course, the cameos! 


Again:  Here Be Spoilers...


Bill Murray shows up first as Martin Heiss, a noted skeptic and "debunker", who appears as though he raided Jon Pertwee's wardrobe from The House That Dripped Blood.  Murray, as Heiss, has more than just a mere cameo though, which was surprising and it was great to see him in another Ghostbusters film!  And no, despite what the film portrays, Heiss does not die . . . he's revealed to have live and even writes a forward to the film's tie-in version of Erin and Abby's book "Ghosts from Our Past: Both Literally and Figuratively: The Study of the Paranormal", where he mentions the medical bills he received at the hands of the team.  The next cameo starts with a voice and, as soon as you hear it, you know it's Annie Potts; she appears as Vanessa, the front desk clerk at the Mercado Hotel who snaps Janine Melnitz's classic line, "What do you want...".   Next, Dan Aykroyd shows up as a gruff, NYC cabbie who drops a clear Ray Stanz line and then caps his bit with a "I afraid of no ghosts!"  In the film's final moments, Ernie Hudson shows up as Patty's Uncle Bill, the undertaker whom she borrowed the hearse to use as the Ecto-1.  And, finally, during a mid-credits sequence, Sigourney Weaver shows up as Dr. Rebecca Gorin, mentor to Holtzmann, while discussing a rough prototype for a containment unit. 


I'm sorry, but I loved these cameos and had an ear-to-ear grin the entire time they were on-screen!  With each cameo, the actors appear to be having a blast in their scenes and I, for one, was grateful that they weren't presented as their original characters training/hiring a new team of 'busters and literally passing the baton -- which would likely have been as forced and painful as it was to write that!  Seriously though, how can even the most jaded Ghostbusters fan not enjoy these cameos?


The ghosts themselves are actually kinda cool and, again, reminiscent of something from The Real Ghostbusters cartoon.  Most notably, when Rowan takes the form of the ghost from the Ghostbusters logo in the film's climax (yeah, I rolled my eyes when I saw the action figure of Rowan and said "That's stupid that he's the ghost from the logo!"); it works here and is also a nice wink to fans of the cartoon series, where we saw this character walking down the street, be-bopping and dancing to the theme song during the opening credits.  Of course, Slimer shows up, too and again, I had the biggest smile on my face!   Early on, when I read that Slimer has a girlfriend, female version of himself in this movie, my eyes rolled so far into the back of my head, it's a wonder I can still see.  However, it works . . . Slimer steals the Ecto-1 from the team and proceeds on a joyride through the city, picking up a crew of ghosts and his love interest, who looks suspiciously like Mandy Pepperidge from Animal House -- perhaps a subtle wink and nod to John Belushi as well?  Again, only the stoniest of hearts wouldn't be able to at least chuckle or smirk at this.


The main cast itself is great; Wiig is perfect as Erin, portraying her with a bit of a stick up her butt, though still displaying that trademark humor and comic-timing she's known for.  McCarthy is great, too, and not as typical "Melissa McCarthy" as the audience would expect; there was only really one scene that felt like it could have been out of any other one of her films, as she tries out some new equipment and winds up being thrown all over an alleyway.  Also, at her most "McCarthy", there's a running gag with the Chinese food delivery guy where she rants and raves at him about her order in a fashion and improve tone you'd expect from her.  All in all, though, she was actually pretty level-headed and anchored the estranged friendship between Abby and Erin.  McKinnon steals the entire movie though; seriously...every single time she's on-screen or says something, it made me smirk, chuckle, grin, and laugh.  Her enthusiasm for the role and the material is so infectious that she just brings so much joy to the film.  If anything, the trailers and promotional material sort of do McKinnon a disservice, almost portraying Holtzmann as someone who's trying to be cool, when in the film's reality, she IS cool as hell and one of the most likable characters! 


Jones is great as well as Patty; the trailers also doing her a disservice by portraying her character as "the black girl", that ramps up a few stereotypes and, honestly, hurts the film.  Patty is a great character and Jones brought her all to the role.  Much like Winston Zeddemore in the previous films, Patty is the civilian of the group, who the non-scholar audience can identify with.  Her dialogue and reactions to several sequences seemed pretty plausible for someone like you or me!  And, I'd be doing Jones a disservice as well if I didn't comment on the recent rash of online attacks she's been facing because of this film;  that shit is completely uncalled for and nothing more than the sentiment of a few, narrow-minded individuals who are upset that someone made another Ghostbusters movie and it wasn't "right" to their hopeless fanboy specifications.  To prove how narrow-minded they are (and their hopes for a "true" sequel), they resorted racial hatred and disgusting online attacks.  Stay classy nerds...


Also along for the ride and flexing his comedic muscles is Chris Hemsworth.  Known to most audiences as the Asgardian god of thunder himself, Thor, in the Avengers films, he can come off as a serious, beefcake action hero.  Here, Hemsworth very nearly steals the show out from under McKinnon as he displays hilarious comic-timing and some great physical comedy bits!  In the role of the villainous Rowan, Neil Casey is good, if not a little Scooby-Dooish and cartoonish, but I think it works here just fine.


For me though, Ghostbusters (2016) wasn't all sunshine and rainbows, as I had a few problems with the film . . .

• the pointless cover of Ray Parker Jr's "Ghostbusters" by Fall Out Boy and Missy Elliot.  Not only does the original song actually play at the start of the film, this cover only pops up during a brief montage and, I think, over the credits.  In a world where compilation albums akin to Now That's What I Call Music are disguised as movie soundtracks bent on wringing every last dollar from the audience, this is a song that feels so completely forced and full of set-up failure.  Missy Elliot's rapping over the track pales in comparison to the similarly forced version of the theme by Run-DMC from Ghostbusters II.  At its best, the song will be a hit with "the kids" today (for those of them who still know who Fall Out Boy and Missy Elliot are) and, at its worst, it'll perfectly cement Ghostbusters (2016) to this time period.

• The trailers really, truly hurt this film in every way imaginable.  They made the film look like a stereotypical Paul Feig directed, Melissa McCarthy starring, Kristen Wiig written (yes, I know she didn't write this) zany comedy with pseudo gross-out humor and ridiculous CGI-physical comedy gags...but with ghosts and under the Ghostbusters brand.  They failed to garner much interest for me initially because, well, I've already seen Bridesmaids, Spy, and The Heat and I've seen Melissa McCarthy get thrown around the living room by a hide-a-bed in a couch in The Boss and hit by a car in Tammy.  Surprisingly, there was very little of Feig's trademark style/humor in Ghostbusters (2016), but when it cropped up -- such a the scenes where the team is confronted by a community college Dean and the Mayor of New York and it feels like Feig let the cast improvise their dialogue -- it worked. 

• The whole villain plot with Rowan felt forced and too gimmicky and, although I hate to use this analogy again, it felt way too Scooby Doo-ish.  The original film didn't need to have a central villain orchestrating the entire plot, with Gozer only showing up in the last reel an no one complained.  This one didn't need Rowan acting like the sort of antagonist you'd find in a cheapo comic book film.

Something else that really sets this film apart from its 1984 original is that it's funny at its core.  The original Ghostbusters is a genre film with funny moments.  At its heart, it's a special effects film with comedic moments.  There are some genuinely terrifying moments in the original film that, I think, get overshadowed by its comedic all-star cast who were at the top of their game in 1984.  For the record, Ghostbusters II is a funnier film!  Ghostbusters (2016) feels like a modern Saturday Night Live sketch crafted by some of today's funniest comedic talents and it delivers in laughs.  Now, don't take this paragraph the wrong way...I'm not saying I don't like the original film and that's unfunny. 

Another fun element to this film was the various gadgets and weapons that Holtzmann came up with throughout;  I'll admit, I was a bit skeptical in the trailers, seeing her with two handgun versions of the proton packs . . . but, within the film and knowing her character, they worked and were a refreshing bit of "wow factor".  In fact, if this had been a traditional sequel with the original cast or if these weapons had been introduced in a video game based on the original movies, fans would be raving about them.




All in all, Ghostbusters (2016) worked for me.  It invested me in its characters and made me want to see more of them, so it's a shame that, as of now, the planned sequel has been scrapped -- especially since the film more than sets things up for a proper sequel.  Is it the third, proper Ghostbusters film that fans have been clamoring for for decades?  Of course not, because those impossible expectations are difficult to meet.  Did I have a good time with it?  Absolutely.  Hey, it could have been worse . . . Seth Rogen, James Franco, and Jonah Hill could have been involved, with the team being stoners and cracking dick jokes for 2hrs. 


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Oh wait, there's one other elephant in the room that I forgot to address:  female Ghostbusters.  Holy Hell did the internet lose its collective mind over this small, seemingly insignificant factor in Ghostbusters (2016)!  I went into the film with a completely 100% open mind and enjoyed it.  Lots of headlines and articles paint the film as some sort of Girl Power reboot, making the gender swap one of the key points to the film . . . sure, yes, this is a film with a Ghostbusters team that happens to be all female, but I don't think it's quite as on the nose and over the head as naysayers and critics would lead one to believe.  It'd be one thing if the characters were female versions of the original film's heroes -- Patricia Venkman, Rayanne Stanz, Egon (er, what IS the female equivalent to the name Egon?) Spengler, and Winnie Zeddemore -- than I could understand the term "gender swap".  However, this film is more or less a sequel (though it's not really clear if it's set in the same universe as the original movies and the cartoon) that just happens to be a different team of 'busters...who happen to be of the female persuasion. 


Guys . . . big deal!  Really, it wasn't worth getting all worked up about.  Again, with an open mind, I had a lot of fun with this film.  was it "perfect"?  No, of course not...but when is a film "perfect"?  Was does that even mean?  When is a film "done"?  Nevermind...  Come on boys, where is this vehement hatred for all things of the opposite sex coming from?  Your childhoods are not ruined because there are suddenly female Ghostbusters -- hell, I'll bet you even had one of the Janine Melnitz figures from The Real Ghostbusters, didn't you?  Seriously though, of all the things to get worked up over and dedicate time and energy to, we chose to be upset about a movie and down-voting its trailer on Youtube?  From the moment I sat down to watch the film, I didn't see any gender barriers or identifiers . . . they were just simply Ghostbusters.  FFS man!

Ghostbusters II: A Misunderstood Gem

Being a kid in the late 80s and early 90s was a glorious time; there were so many great movie franchises that spawned cartoons and toy lines (not necessarily in that order of course), but one that always stood out for me was, of course Ghostbusters.  Nearly 30 years later, I still can clearly recall the exact moment I found out about The Real Ghostbusters toy line; it was 1987 and my Dad had taken me to the Laneco store in Clinton, NJ for some reason.  While there, I checked out the toy aisle (as I always did, no matter who I was with at the store) and, to my surprise, there were a bunch of Ghostbusters action figures!  Never mind the "Real" connotations with their title or that they looked cartoonish (given that they were tie-ins to the Saturday morning cartoon), I was stoked that I could finally have a Peter Venkman action figure!  Of course, Dad bought me just that and, as they say sometimes, the rest was history...

Over the next few years, I was all about The Real Ghostbusters; I had almost all of the toys and watched the cartoon endlessly.  Pretty much any tie-in related to the show was something I had to have in fact.  At this point though, I'd say I was more into the cartoon and the toy line than I was the original 1984 movie itself; I don't ever recall owning a VHS copy of the movie (or its sequel for that matter) and only remember ever seeing it at babysitters' or friends' houses, or if it happened to be on TV.  I can safely say that Ghostbusters occupied my world before Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!

Sometime in 1988 or very early '89, I remember the first time I knew there would be a Ghostbusters II; it came courtesy of the image below, which my Dad showed me in a magazine.  My first thought was "Where's Winston and who's the old dude with the guys and Louis?!" 

This simple image had the 6yr old version of me stoked!

Once the movie was finally released, it was actually a very significant piece of my hometown's history...our local movie theater, The Barn Theater had the biggest screen I'd ever seen at that point and I even saw my very first theatrical movie there -- Rocky IV!  It was also within walking distance for pretty much everyone in town; granted Frenchtown, NJ is small but it was a thrill and an event to actually walk -- as a family -- the 8 or so blocks to the theater!  So, needless to say, when The Barn Theater got sold and was ultimately closing up shop in 1989, the entire town mourned.

Ghostbusters II was the very last movie my family saw there.  Since then, I've always thought that it was the very last show there completely, but I've heard conflicting reports about that.

As a sequel, I always thought it was great how the story picked up in real time, 5 years later, showing the effects of the first film on our heroes.  The fact that they were sued out the ass for all the destruction they caused may have seemed a trivial and pointless beat, but it's interesting to see similar fallout in today's blockbusters like Captain America:  Civil War and Batman V. Superman.  The story goes that the Ghostbusters have become a joke despite saving the city and all four guys have pretty much moved on with their lives; Egon is back at Columbia University in a lab, Ray owns an occult book store on St. Mark's (when he and Winston aren't paid children's entertainers doing birthday parties) and Peter hosts a fraudulent psychic television talk-show.  That is, until a new threat attacks Dana Barrett and her infant son, forcing her to reconnect with Egon, Ray, and her estranged beau Peter. 

In a sense, the basic plot works as a "let's get the band back together" sort of vibe that is a little too on the nose with revamped logo outside the Firehouse (and on their uniforms) and the "WE'RE BACK!" ad ticker on the updated Ecto 1-A later in the film.  Speaking of that logo, I always thought it was interesting how the film blurred the line between its fictional world and reality by including it within as well as Ray and Winston using Ray Parker's "Ghostbusters" to get everyone into a dancing mood at a kids' birthday party.  

Another cool thing about the film that I was always disappointed there wasn't more of was the inclusion of the 'busters wearing black/gray jumpsuits in a few scenes.  It's weird because they're wearing those suits on the one-sheet and even the soundtrack album cover, too.  The few scenes where they are wearing them -- mostly during the montage -- stand out because, well, those suits just look so much cooler than the regular brown/gray suits. 

Over the years, much of the criticism for Ghostbusters II has been that it's a virtual remake of the original movie and it's clearly designed to sell merchandise (i.e. toys to kids like me at the time).  However, I have to disagree:  it doesn't necessarily remake the previous movie in that it hits the same story beats in almost the exact same spots -- much like the relationship between Star Wars and The Force Awakens.  As far as the merchandising goes, sure there was "some" merch available for the film, but ultimately any toys were still under The Real Ghostbusters banner (of which, there was only a re-release of the Ecto 1-A with the updated stickers featuring the sequel logo, the "WE'RE BACK" ticker, and pink slime splats, among others included and a role-play Slime Cannon -- neither of which I had).  If the purpose of the movie was to sell toys, you'd think they would have released a set of figures in the black suits or with the slime cannons used in the 3rd act.

After re-watching the film a couple nights ago back-to-back with a theatrical showing of the original, I think it's safe to say that it's more or less based on The Real Ghostbusters cartoon/toy line more than the opposite.  The two most obvious clues are that the mood slime is pink this time around (Kenner must have made a small fortune in its pink/red slime produced for the toy line) and Annie Potts' Janine Melnitz character suddenly looking more like her cartoon counterpart.  Also, it goes without saying that bringing back Slimer and making him more comedic relief/a friend of at least Louis, echoes his cartoon version.  In fact, I remember thinking the first time I saw the movie, as Louis suited up to help out the guys, that'd maybe, just maybe he'd use the Ecto 2-A gyrocopter vehicle from the toy line!

Another main source of criticism in the film is Bill Murray's performance, which many feel is phoned in only for a quick paycheck.  Again, I disagree as this movie contains some of Peter's funniest bits and dialogue -- even stuff that I literally finally understand after last night's viewing!  Murray is in fine, sarcastic form here displaying his trademark dry humor throughout.  His insults to Peter MacNicol's Janosz -- calling him "Johnny" for example -- have had me in stitches for 27 years!  There are shades of Meatballs' Tripper Harrison, Caddyshack's Carl Spackler, and even Stripes' John Winger in Murray's delivery and timing here!

Ultimately, I think a lot of the "phoned-in" complaints come from the fact that, initially, Raimis and Aykroyd didn't want to do a sequel.  The first film was self-contained and had a finite ending, but with the success of the cartoon, Columbia Pictures begged and pleaded to continue the story.  Perhaps that's what's evident in Murray's performance; a sense of "can lightning strike twice?  Do I even care if it does?"  Next to the original, the sequel is night and day....the first one could be viewed as a Saturday Night Live sketch stretched to a feature length, with a heavy dose of reality and monster movie madness thrown in...the sequel is a life-action cartoon intentionally aimed at its youthful audience. 

It's funny, after the theatrical screening of the first film, I was talking to my wife about it and she mentioned how it wasn't very big in her circle of teenage friends when it came out...it wasn't quite regarded as a comedy classic like Meatballs, Caddyshack, or Stripes.  For my money, the funniest parts of the first film are Bill Murray...with the rest of it capturing my imagination and playing to my love of monsters and ghosts.

In the end, I think time has been kind to this sequel -- which, it should be noted, came out during an influx of sequels in the late 80s.  Perhaps in the absence of a true Ghostbusters III, fans are revisiting it and finding appreciation.  Or maybe even in spite of the Paul Feig-helmed reboot, nostalgia is kicking in and forcing fans to give it another spin. 

One last thing....it would be criminal to mention the soundtrack!  Truly a product of its time, featuring Run-DMC, New Edition, Doug E. Fresh, and Bobby Brown (with 2 tracks!), the Ghostbusters II soundtrack was an early favorite cassette that I owned.  Today, it still gets regular play (and sing-alongs) on my iPod with "Spirit" by Doug E. Fresh remaining an all-time favorite.  



Sequels and Reboots In Our Genres

In case you've been living off the grid for the last couple years, you may be aware of a reboot/sequel/threequel that is scheduled for release next month . . . it's related to a 1984 comedy classic that many people in my age group hold near and dear.  Yes, I'm talking about the Paul Feig-directed Ghostbusters starring Kristin Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones. Pretty much since its announcement, there's been a split decision amongst the interwebs and, since the release of its first teaser trailer, Neckbeards and basement dwellers have been putting on their wrinkled NO MA'AM t-shirts in misogynistic protest.

For the record, this is not one of those pieces. 

Hear me out . . . when it comes to Horror sequels and remakes/reboots, why has there always been a problem with casting?  No one could play Freddy Krueger except Robert Englund -- this was proven when New Line and Platinum Dunes tried to remake A Nightmare on Elm Street in 2010.  Poor Jackie Earl Haley, while fine in the fedora and famous sweater, was up against impossibly stacked odds (not to mention a terrible screenplay) of trying to please a nearly thirty year old fan base that had been unequivocally used to only seeing one man portray the character.  Outside of the Horror genre, of course, there's Harrison Ford and the characters of Indiana Jones and Han Solo.  No one else could play either of those characters -- hell, even I was set to belly-ache when Chris Pratt was rumored to be in the running for an Indiana Jones reboot. 

Ultimately, what has both contributed to and, in some cases hindered (like the original Ghostbusters, its sequel and the never-ending stalling of a proper Ghostbusters III) film franchises of almost any genre?  Continuity.  Granted, with Halloween and Friday the 13th, there have mostly always been different guys playing those masked killers, so it's a bit of a no-brainer.  However, with Freddy Krueger, Indiana Jones, Han Solo, and even say, Rocky Balboa, it'd be pretty difficult to re-cast those iconic characters -- but why didn't it happen?  

As much as I love the storyline continuity throughout the eight Friday the 13th movies, why couldn't there have just been sequels picking up in the middle of one of Jason's killing sprees instead of following groundwork already laid out in previous installments?  One could argue that this occurred with Jason Goes To Hell:  The Final Friday and, with that being said, maybe that wasn't such a good idea.

My whole point is this:  why didn't our most beloved franchises -- Horror or otherwise -- follow the James Bond template and either A.) Have the leading character in simply a new adventure for each film instead of painting everything into a proverbial corner or B.) Recast whenever possible?  Imagine the wealth of Indiana Jones adventures that we could've had in the nineteen years between Last Crusade and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  This could have easily solved the seemingly endless delays to get a proper Ghostbusters III made.  Of course recasting doesn't always necessarily work out so well as was the case with 2011's dreadful Hellraiser:  Revelations where Pinhead was infamously recast and, well, viewers decided to ultimately pass . . . though the character has again been recast for next year's Hellraiser:  Judgment, so we'll have to reserve our, er, judgment a little longer.

Of course, as I speak of recasting and reboots, I can't ignore the hugely successful Mad Max:  Fury Road, which seamlessly cast Tom Hardy in its title role or the never-ending superhero reboots like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy or Superman and, to a somewhat less-successful point, Spider-Man.  The loudest criticism was hurled at the late Heath Ledger as soon as he was cast as The Joker; I'll happily continue to eat my own hearty meal of crow once I saw the film and hailed his genius performance!  On the pseudo-failure side, there's Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man which, for my money, didn't really need to be rebooted so closely after Sam Raimi's trilogy . . . though I suspect the failure there may have been more script-based and behind the scenes instead of casting.  Same goes for Brandon Routh in Superman Returns, a fine actor and great performance that ultimately was crushed under the weight of the character itself and fans' expectations.  On the same coin, Henry Cavill has done a fine job in Supes' tights, again with my only complaints coming from the script and/or direction.  With this year's Batman V. Superman, I'd say Ben Affleck as Batman wasn't too bad and, honestly, I'm looking forward to seeing more of Bat-fleck, as having an older big screen take was a refreshing change.

As I pondered possible reasons for why these famous characters were never recast or deviated from their narrative continuity throughout their respective franchises, there was only one that kept coming to mind.  All of the franchises I've mentioned were born (or thrived) in the VHS and cable era where many of us watched them endlessly and, as a result, they endured much more so than a film that we may have only seen a few scant times theatrically during initial release or an occasional re-release.  Maybe that's why the majority of the casting changes and story continuity changes in the Bond franchise were so easy to overlook?  Raise your hand if you literally wore out your VHS of copy of a Back To The Future, Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Rocky, Star Wars, Friday the 13th, or A Nightmare on Elm Street movie from watching it so many times....go ahead, I see you laughing, but it's true! 

So, while I'm not saying there's absolutely no sexist stance against this summer's Ghostbusters -- because it's quite obvious that there is, especially from the anonymity behind a computer screen -- I'm leaning towards the fact that those original characters and the actors who played them are so ingrained in a lot of fans' minds that it's almost impossible to accept change.  I'm not exactly thrilled about the movie myself, but it's certainly not because of its female cast.  Setting aside my nostalgia for the original and The Real Ghostbusters cartoon and toy line), I'm curious to see how it all plays out and will no doubt be there opening weekend.

And, of course, earlier this week it was announced that Platinum Dunes plans to soldier on and force another Friday the 13th reboot upon the world -- only, this time it will be different because it's going to delve into a part of Jason's origin that we haven't yet seen . . . by introducing his father, Elias Voorhees.  Originally, that character was to make an appearance at the end of Friday the 13th Part VI:  Jason Lives, though it was dropped before filming and the character was only casually mentioned in Jason Goes To Hell.  Listen, I'm all for another Friday the 13th movie but, dammit, why can't we just have a sequel that picks up like a Bond sequel, with Jason (looking cool and not like the haunted hayride knockoff of Freddy Vs. Jason of course) in the middle of a new adventure where he's doing what he does best -- hacking up teenagers?  Is that too much to ask?   My ideal Friday the 13th sequel would be just that with a poster tagline that reads:  "Not familiar with Jason?   Ask your parents to show you the first 8 movies!"  No need to rehash the past and delve into backstory that wasn't originally there in there first place; just give the fans what they want:  Jason hacking up teenagers via squishy practical special effects.