Jason Reitman and the new Ghostbusters: Respecting the Fans isn’t Misogynistic


From the teaser/trailer to “Ghostbusters 3”

Apparently, the whole “Ghostbusters” thing, the next movie in the franchise scheduled to hit the theaters in 2020 isn’t over yet. In fact, the controversy seems to be just warming up.

As you may recall, a little over a month ago, I wrote about the upcoming sequel to be directed by Jason Reitman, son of Ivan Reitman, director of the original 1984 film starring Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Sigourney Weaver.


Screen capture from twitter

But the announcement that the 2020 film would be a direct sequel to the original, essentially bypassing the very badly received 2016 remake, made a few people angry, as if the younger Reitman’s vision was somehow a slight to that movie’s all-female cast in particular and feminism in general. In fact, actress Leslie Jones, who played Patty Tolan in the 2016 film, got on twitter to express her extreme displeasure (to put it mildly).

However, movie studios are in the business of making money. If they can create good and entertaining films while doing so, I’m really all for it. However, if a movie doesn’t do well, the studio is going to take a good, hard look at what went wrong, especially if the project had been part of a highly successful franchise, and try to fix it (as opposed to just trashing the franchise and moving to something new and original).

Last summer, I talked about the dangers of gender flipping, that is, taking a very successful film franchise that predominantly featured men, and casting the same roles with women. The idea is to create a more feminist oriented movie where an all-female cast might not draw a huge audience, and plug them into a franchise that is more or less guaranteed to earn tons of money.

However, with 2016’s Ghostbusters remake, that plan didn’t work so well.

So what happened now?

Jason Reitman gave an interview referenced in Vanity Fair and said the unthinkable:

Jason Reitman is staying the course to make a new Ghostbusters movie—but his latest remarks about the project are already kicking up backlash. In an interview on Bill Burr’s podcast on Monday, the Oscar-nominated filmmaker—son of original Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman—said that the newest Ghostbusters will be a reboot that will “go back to original technique and hand the movie back to the fans.”

If you don’t read any further than that, you might come to the wrong conclusion (as apparently, many people have). Here’s more:

Reitman went into detail about said “original technique,” explaining that for the first teaser released in January, he used original files for the sounds of the proton pack and the original lettering that was used in the first film’s promotional materials. “We went back and found the original physical vinyl letters that they used to create the Ghostbusters poster in 1984, [and] rescanned them, then our titles guys reprinted them and we filmed the titles,” he said. “We shot physical titles with a light-and-smoke effect ’cause that’s how they would have done it back in the day.”


Screen capture from twitter

There’s a reason the 1984 movie is a classic. There’s a reason I watch it every Halloween and remain totally entertained by the story and the performances. There’s a reason the writing by Dan Aykroyd and the late Harold Ramis is magnificent, that in addition to Murray, Aykroyd, and Weaver, the performances of Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, William Atherton, Ernie Hudson, and the rest of the cast are top-notch and always compelling. If Ivan’s son can even begin to match such a terrific piece of film making, my hat’s off to him.

However, when he said ““go back to original technique and hand the movie back to the fans,” he “miffed” off a lot of people, and he realized it himself when he tweeted:


Screen capture from twitter

I honestly can’t say that the 2016 film was “an amazing movie” because I haven’t seen it. When the reviews came in, just like 2018’s Solo: A Star Wars Story, I decided against spending my time and my money (I even had the opportunity of renting “Solo” from my local public library for free and my visceral reaction was “no”).

So, I can’t actually judge the quality of the 2016 movie. Maybe I should take Reitman’s word for it, but then again, no matter what he says now, he’s already been “slimed” by the critics.

As you can see from the screen captures of the various tweets, some people are not pleased. Frankly, I’ve never heard of these pundits before (I guess that makes me a terrible misogynist or something), but I think they’re all missing the point.

For whatever reason, the 1984 Ghostbusters film hit a home run that still keeps on going. The 2016 film, not so much. Is it because the former had a male cast and the later had a female one? I doubt it. There are a large number of variables that determine a good movie from a bad one, and the gender of the leads is a very minor factor as long as the casting makes sense and the performances are good.

One of my sons who did see the 2016 film, and who is the most socially and politically liberal member of my family, says that the cast are incredibly funny and talented women, but they were saddled by the film’s bad writing and poor execution. I mean what actor hasn’t been stuck in a bad movie before through no fault of their own, right?


Screen captures from twitter

Unfortunately, the pundits can’t seem to see past their collective nose, and realize it’s not a sex/gender thing, it’s a film making thing. If you gender flip for its own sake and ignore good storytelling, depending on “oh look, it’s feminist,” to draw in big profits, you might not get the expected results. This is not because audiences are misogynistic, as Rian Johnson and J.J. Abrams suggested when some criticized the 2017 movie Star Wars: The Last Jedi. It’s because the writing wasn’t very good, and the social justice preaching was incredibly transparent. No one likes being lectured to when they’re expecting to be entertained. Yes, you can entertain and still get across a socially relevant point, but you have to both be talented, and respect your audience to be effective.

I can’t speak to the talent of the writers and filmmakers behind the 2016 Ghostbusters or The Last Jedi, but I can tell you, as a long-time fan of both franchises, at least relative to Last Jedi, I was not respected as a fan.

I think Reitman is actually saying he respects the fans and wants to make a movie reflecting such respect. If he wants to include a social agenda at the same time, I’m okay with that, too. Gene Roddenberry did that with the original Star Trek television series, and he created a phenomenon because the writing was good. Unfortunately, over 50 years later, the franchise has degraded, like so many others, such that it no longer respects the fans or the vision behind what made Star Trek great in the first place.

I know, just like my recent commentary on the movies Avengers: Infinity War (2018) and the upcoming Avengers: Endgame (2019), whenever I get “political” on this blog, the response is less than stellar (to put it mildly). I suspect my views sometimes offend people who are too polite to tell me what they think I’m full of. However, an interest in science fiction, fantasy, and good storytelling isn’t just about writing cute (and socially justifiable) stories. It’s about discussing the nature of the industry, both historically, and how it is evolving based on various social pressures and requirements.

It’s impossible to say all this to the relevant pundits in a series of tweets, so I’m saying it here and they can click the links I’m putting on social media if they so desire. There’s more than one legitimate way to view an issue, and someone has to talk about the difference between being unfair to disadvantaged groups and calling out bad storytelling.

10 thoughts on “Jason Reitman and the new Ghostbusters: Respecting the Fans isn’t Misogynistic

  1. The girls had their day in the sun, now it’s time to bring the boys back in and “save the day”.
    Still, I think it’s so cute… if the ladies want another shot, why not let them have it? I’ll probably still watch it. But damn, the guys ARE the experts.

    Liked by 1 person

    • My understanding is that some of the original cast will come back and train the next generation of teenage ghostbusters, but of course, that could change. I don’t even think they’re in production yet. As I said, I don’t think the actresses involved in the 2016 film were at any fault at all. I think they got roped into a project that probably wasn’t going to work from the beginning. If you want to make a film that focuses on powerful female leads, I think Marvel’s “Captain Marvel” movie or DC’s “Wonder Woman” is the better route.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. “hand the movie back to the fans.”

    Hmm, based on that, I’d think that he wanted to do a film that *fans* liked. Fans are where the money is, not critics. Word of mouth puts bu, er bodies in seats as much as the trailers do.

    Fans of certain dynastic films expect certain things: If the *fans* expect big sweeping scenes in the opening with symphonic tones underscoring a huge battle, and you give them a narrow view with lilting trills, the *fans* will not be happy. If *fans* expect stereotype (trope) characters and weekend matinee / pulp plots and you offer up multilayers, troubled (“real”) characters and deep motive for every action, *fans* may not be happy. One reason I am not a fan for remakes or reimages. I have expectations when you use “Existing Name” in your title. (major exception being any series or movie based on Space Battleship Yamato – there have so many incarnation of Yamato that I will watch just to see how they treat it. Ditto for The Turtles.)

    We saw Solo: A Star Wars Story (from Library I think) and found it to be pleasantly enjoyable. It was nothing like the Mary Sueism of Last Jedi. The actor playing Han did a fair job matching Harrison and the film filled in some back story – including explaining the infamous jump in 12 parses line/gaff from Star Wars. Is it a great movie? Nah. But it was a fun, popcorn movie. {popcorn movie: turn your brain off and watch, feels good at the time but leaves not lasting impact}

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’ll probably see “Solo” someday, and now that I’ve “vented my spleen” over the 2016 version of “Ghostbusters,” I might see that too, if for no other reason than to confirm what others have said (which doesn’t exactly make me unbiased).

      Liked by 3 people

  3. I absolutely loved ‘Solo’. I spent most of the movie laughing and cheering…I’m terrible to attend movies with! It absolutely made sense. Han’s character was crystallized in this movie. It’s one I’d watch over and over, because it ties up so many bits. And the end? Yup. More ties, if you know much about Star Wars canon. I also enjoyed Last Jedi. Not all of it, too much cheese. But, it also made sense. Too many fans look at the feel good parts of a movie and forget the story and where it came from and where it’s going. I would not watch this one repeatedly, the cheese wasn’t Tillamook!
    As for ‘Ghostbusters,’ I’ve not seen the newest one, so I’m not really qualified to make a statement. I can say, I’ve watched the original many times and it still makes me laugh out loud. My kids enjoyed the animated sequel series. Yet, isn’t there another story out there? I was always intrigued by the librarian. Why was she haunting the library? What exactly was the chubby green monster ghost?
    Classics should remain. Sure, a few will enjoy remakes of an original, but by and large, not many appreciated the Banana Split Creme Oreo. 😂

    Liked by 2 people

  4. GB3 was terrible. just because you can let your cast adlib the script for laughs, does not mean you should. Pretty cringe worthy stuff if i recall.
    my then 15yo daughter hated the idea of rebooting without a back story, and refused to put up with the movie, instead we scoffed all the way through(pointing and laughing at the pitiful on screen antics is a much more productive pastime)
    I didn’t work.
    the dance scene at the end WTF!
    cliche characters.
    dumb blonde -tick
    loud african american -tick
    stoopid story -tick
    horrendous Bill Murray cameo- tick.
    it had nothing for nostalgia – no music- no ghostbusters car no – ray parker Jnr!!!

    mrs slimer! – 😳

    blah blah…

    the effects were great though.


    • If Hollywood wants to promote successful, female-led films, they’ll need to become more original. So far, the “Captain Marvel” film seems to be highly successful, so that’s a start. Conversely, “gender flipping” a popular franchise always seems so obvious.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.