GhostbustersThe world is getting an all-female Ghostbusters film that apparently doesn’t even take place in the same universe as the original movies. Why is it still called Ghostbusters then? Good question. Paul Feig of Bridesmaids and The Heat fame is taking on the project, but at the end of the day he would have been wise to take his own advice…

Entertainment Weekly reported Oct. 8:

PAUL FEIG: I had been contacted by Sony and Ivan a number of months ago when I was in Budapest shooting my new movie Spy. But I was like, I don’t know if I want to take that on because the first two are such classics and just because of how do you do it? Who do you bring in now that Harold’s gone? I know that Bill didn’t want to do it and I love Dan, but it was just like I don’t know how to do it. Then I had lunch with [Sony Pictures co-chairman] Amy Pascal when I got back to town. She was just saying, gosh, nobody wants to do this. I said, yeah, it’s really hard to take that on, especially since it’s 25 years later. how do you come back into a world that’s had these ghosts and all this? It just felt too difficult. How do you do it and not screw it up?

Amy Pascal should have taken the fact that no one wanted to touch Ghostbusters as a clue that maybe it shouldn’t be done. Paul Feig’s gut told him that he shouldn’t take the project either, but then he came up with a not-so-bright idea: Let’s make a movie that isn’t anything like the original Ghostbusters, but then call it Ghostbusters so we can say that we did Ghostbusters. Genius! And if people don’t like my idea of having an all-female cast in this non-Ghostbusters movie, then we’ll just sit back and watch our friends in the media call them sexists.

As it turns out, Ernie Hudson — Winston himself — also thinks this is an odd idea.

The Telegraph reported Oct. 9:

“I heard it was going to be a total reboot, and that it would have nothing to do with the other two movies. If it has nothing to do with the other two movies, and it’s all female, then why are you calling it Ghostbusters? I love females. I hope that if they go that way at least they’ll be funny, and if they’re not funny at least hopefully it’ll be sexy. I love the idea of including women, I think that’s great. But all-female I think would be a bad idea. I don’t think the fans want to see that.”

Mr. Hudson is going to get himself in trouble with that “sexy” remark, but it’s hard to argue with his underlying point: Hollywood is forcing a bastardized version of Ghostbusters into existence, and Amy Pascal somehow thinks that fans of the original will be happy with that.

Should Hollywood remake Indiana Jones with Kristen Wiig as the lead just to prove that a female Indiana Jones can be successful? Should Animal House be rebooted as Animal Sorority with Melissa McCarthy leading an all-female cast, just to prove that women can be just as funny as John Belushi?

Paul Feig is obviously a talented man, but calling a film Ghostbusters that is almost completely divorced from the original is not a good way to win over its fans. If he can propel this movie to box office success, then he will deserve every penny that Sony pays him.


  1. Hudson is completely right, especially with that last remark. Representation is great, but it has to be done right and there is a threshold beyond which it doesn’t make sense.

    Sony has been making a lot of strange decisions lately. Did you know they have the rights to ALF and Manimal, and are planning to reboot them too?

    At least we have the 2009 video game. It’s got the voices and likenesses of the entire cast and one of the scrapped plots of Ghostbusters 3, so it’s basically the sequel we never got (and never will get, now).

    1. I heard that the video game was pretty good. I never really thought a Ghostbusters 3 was a good idea, but if they were going to do it, then I’d want the original cast.

      On some level I hope Sony’s next Spider-Man installment stinks so it will be clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that they need to just give the rights back to Marvel.

    2. The fourth film got canceled and the threequel has been pushed back. If Sinister Six and the female-led film fail, there is still hope uwu

    3. And the second ASM film (which I still haven’t seen) had the worst box office performance of any Spider-Man movie. I kind of hope that Spidey’s rights revert back to Marvel as well.

      I really can’t see a Sinister Six movie doing well, largely because they’re villains. They’re not good people. It’s just as bad as if they made a movie based on Wildstorm’s awful Authority comic, where the “heroes” are psychopathic murderers.

    4. If Sony can’t handle a standard Spider-Man flick, I don’t know how the heck they’re going to put together an awesome “Sinister Six” movie. I just don’t see it happening… I thought “The Amazing Spider-Man” was decent, but there was nothing about it that knocked my socks off. I couldn’t bring myself to see the sequel. It just looked bad, and then when the reviews came out there wasn’t a chance I was going to spend $10 to see it in theaters.

    5. Yeah, it was also the worst-reviewed of any Spider-Man movie. I’m still up in the air about whether or not I want to see it; it looked bad. I admit that I actually forgot about it altogether, being more focused on “Captain America: the Winter Soldier,” “X-Men: Days of Future Past” and “Guardians of the Galaxy.”

      I just don’t see any potential in a Sinister Six movie at all. Or a Venom movie for that matter. Who wants to root for psychopathic villains? I certainly don’t.

      I liked the first movie, too, but I really don’t think Sony has much of a grasp on the character. I think Marvel would do a much better job with him.

    6. This seems to have come out of the Sony leak:

      Marvel Studios wanted to include Spider-Man in a minor role in “Captain America: Civil War” to introduce him in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and spearhhead a new series, with Sony Pictures retaining creative control and distribution rights, but Sony declined in favor of mapping out a new slew of standalone Spider-Man movies.

      >”The Amazing Spider-Man” series has pretty much been scrapped, and they’ll reboot again.

      >One of the ideas is to introduce the new Spider-Man in the upcoming “Sinister Six” movie directed by Drew Goddard, which very likely won’t meet its release date of November 13, 2016. Spider-Man and his enemies would already be active and join forces to fight a common enemy. Spider-Man would end up getting the alien symbiote, which he later discards because the Sinister Six thinks “it’s lame”. In a potential sequel, the symbiote would bond with another host and become Venom.

      >Another idea is to reintroduce Spider-Man in a more modest, standalone movie, retelling his origin in a brief opening segment and ignoring his parents entirely. Spider-Man would acquire the symbiote, in its Ultimate version as a biotechnological suit to cure cancer, which would then become Venom. Sequels would tackle other foes who haven’t been in movies yet, like Carnage and the Hobgoblin.

      >There are plans of a “Venom” standalone movie, but several producers don’t think he’s a strong enough character to carry his own movie.

      “The Amazing Spider-Man” series has pretty much been scrapped
      pretty much been scrapped

    7. One of the ideas is to produce an animated movie written and directed by Chris Miller and Phil Lord, director of “The LEGO Movie”. Incidentally, Sony is also considering a “Jump Street”/”Men in Black” crossover in which Jenko and Schmidt, played by Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill, would be recruited to the MIB.

      >The female-led “Spider-Man” spin-off planned for 2017 focused on an original female character that shares some sort of connection with Peter Parker. It appears to be scrapped.

      >The “Aunt May” spin-off, described as spy thriller, was also a real possibility despite Sony’s constant denial.

      >There’s a summit in January meant to decide Spider-Man’s fate at Sony. Although the American producers have already declined the joint venture with Marvel Studios, the Japanese owners of the enterprise apparently have second thoughts and believe the deal could revive Spider-Man’s public image and bring them much needed profit after the fallback of the hacking scandal. So, it’s not ENTIRELY off the table.

      Lord/Miller Spider-Man? SIGN ME UP

    8. The “Aunt May” spin-off, described as spy thriller, was also a real possibility despite Sony’s constant denial.

      When I first saw this reported I just had to shake my head. It was like Sony would rather destroy all credibility for a cinematic Spider-Man than just admit they stink and give the rights back to Marvel.

    9. They want the bucks… Only problem is, Disney BTFOs them on merchandizing alone, and they are dipping further into the red with every movie they make because they waste so much cash pimping them out.

      SPE/Columbia is just about dead weight now. Maybe they’ll sell it off to someone who cares even a little more.

    10. Sony has apparently decided to move forward with “The Amazing Spider-Man 3” and release it in 2016. They’re apparently filming in Atlanta, Georgia this year and issued casting calls for extras. The casting call confirms the returns of Andrew Garfield and Dane Dehaan, but Marc Webb most likely won’t return, and will be replaced by Drew Goddard, who was originally set to direct “The Sinister Six”.

  2. I have already booked tickets to see Ghostbusters at the cinema. I can’t wait. This will be one of my all time greatest cinema experiences.

    I am of course referring to the original film that I am watching on 28 October.

    This is no doubt being highly praised and will probably do well at the box office if the right women are cast. People who complain about it being all women will be called sexist and no doubt any male characters will be complete morons. You never know, if it gets moaned about enough Ben Affleck might cry.

    All in all its par for the course with Hollywood. A lack of original ideas and the obsession with reboots means we get films like this.

    Coming in 2016, Jennifer Aniston as Patricia Venkman, Melissa McCarthy as Rachel Stantz, Yvette Nicole Brown as Whitney Zeddemore and Mayim Bialik as Edwina Spengler. It doesn’t matter who the bad guy is so we will cast the first white man that comes to auditions.

    1. This just sounds stupid. And not surprisingly, you’re a “sexist” if you’re opposed to an all-female Ghostbusters team:

      And then my local paper ran some idiotic article about how other movies need “gendered” reboots, whatever the f*** that means.

      Here’s an idea: create an original story with an all-female ghost team rather than reboot a classic because of political correctness.

    2. Coming in 2016, Jennifer Aniston as Patricia Venkman, Melissa McCarthy as Rachel Stantz, Yvette Nicole Brown as Whitney Zeddemore and Mayim Bialik as Edwina Spengler. It doesn’t matter who the bad guy is so we will cast the first white man that comes to auditions.

      Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon. 2/4 ain’t bad.

      Also of interest: a new Fantastic Four trailer.

    3. Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon. 2/4 ain’t bad.

      Oh, it’s bad. I will be shocked if this movie is any good. Also, Paul Feig says he wants this movie to be scary. Is there anything in his background that suggests he can do “scary”?

    4. The new FF movie looks boring. Plus the new Doctor Doom is an “angry blogger” named Victor Domshev. I kid you not.

  3. I so agree with you. Also, in this quest for all female stuff, how come nobody ever wants to do anything original? What’s with the constant attempts to re-stamp a female face on something created by men?

    1. I think ‘original’ is the key word. I don’t have any problem with an all-female cast kicking butt or taking out ghosts, but Sony shouldn’t call it Ghostbusters if it’s not. There are plenty of ways a project like this could get off the ground without annoying fans of the original movies.

    2. I’ve nothing against an all-female cast battling ghosts, but like Doug said, it shouldn’t be called Ghostbusters if it’s not. If you’re going to create such a story, make your own. Is that really so hard? Apparently, to Hollywood, it is. Why must existing characters be changed? Because diversity?

    3. I would assume that Sony is calling it “Ghostbusters” because they own the rights to the title. The same reason that the 2010 movie with Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan was called “Karate Kid” in the US (even though the kid learns kung fu, not karate, in the remake).

      In fact, trademark and copyright laws may have a “use it or lose it” provision, so the owner has to periodically use names and characters to keep them from passing into public domain.

      I have no objection to an all-female team battling ghosts, and I don’t mind if they call it Ghostbusters. It does seem odd, though, that movies with female action heroes are usually science fiction, fantasy, costumed super-heroes, and/or comedies. Never a reasonably realistic crime drama about a woman detective solving a murder case, or a female FBI agent or US marshal tracking down bank robbers. IRL, there are a lot of women “action heroes” in law enforcement, firefighting, and the military.

    4. In fact, trademark and copyright laws may have a “use it or lose it” provision, so the owner has to periodically use names and characters to keep them from passing into public domain.

      I totally get that, but someone needs to call Sony out for it (as they’re doing with Spider-Man). Sony is leeching publicity from Harold Ramis’ vision of Ghostbusters while admitting that the new movie will be almost completely divorced from his creation. Not cool.

    5. The IDW comic had an arc where the team got trapped in an alternate dimension and Janine, Kylie Griffin from Extreme Ghostbusters, and two new characters (a male and a female) stepped in to take their place. Not completely all-female, but close enough that I think comics sites made a big deal out of it.

      A movie with those four characters could have been cool, at the very least better than what Sony has in mind.

  4. I sure hope they do not ruin a good thing, but then again the industry has a record of destroying good properties. I still have not seen the last Spider-Man movie ….and I own it…….I guess I am almost too afraid to watch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: