♠ … A Pretty Big Twinkie indeed. To celebrate Women’s History Month 2016, we’re going to analyze the new Ghostbusters 2016 trailer (it’s mildly annoying that I need to put a “2016” after the title to distinguish it from the 1984 film because they didn’t bother to put a subtitle behind it) and make some inferences regarding its final form in film this July.
Naturally, this movie’s very existence invites comparisons to the original Ghostbusters film from 1984, as unfair as it may be to do; ’84 is a timeless supernatural comedy classic and ’16 is still only two trailers. Peep it the latest international one:
Familiarize yourself with what you just viewed, as I will be referring back to it continually as we discuss the two things that Ghostbusters ’16 WON’T be: ♠
THE HORRIDLY UNWATCHABLE TRAVESTY PEOPLE ARE CLAIMING IT TO BE
♦ Honestly, this movie doesn’t look that terrible. We’ll talk about the aesthetics of the film first, followed by its humor.
They definitely got the look of the Ghostbusters right. The ’84 guys weren’t handsome studs and these woman aren’t costumed or made-up to be the female equivalent.
Considering the weapons, they’re satisfying from the trailer. The original ’84 team all wielded the same proton pack and nuclear accelerators. This time around, it looks like each member has her own unique weapon. Though they do have the iconic ’84 weapons, Kate McKinnon’s Holtzmann, an engineer, dual wields some type of nuclear accelerated pistols while Melissa McCarthy’s Yates punches out ghosts with some sort of proton punching gauntlets (1:13 in). The team gets bonus points for building giant bear trap ghost traps (39 seconds in). However, the question on everyone’s minds is, will it make us laugh?
It stars four women comedians who are supposedly decidedly funny (including Saturday Night Live alumni from what I’ve read). The film is going to include gross-out gags like ghost vomit in the form of slime (20 seconds in), awkward pieces of dialogue that undercut an expected epic line from a lead character in ironic fashion (1:00 in), and, to my personal dismay, Leslie Jones’ Patty as the loud angry black woman #4 (1:25). The majority of the comedy featured in the trailer doesn’t necessarily appeal to me, but it looks somewhere in the range of mediocre to serviceable.
As for the broad appeal of the film, two of director Paul Feig’s previous films are Bridesmaids and Spy, which have scores of 90% and 94% respectively on Rotten Tomatoes, both “Certified Fresh.”
There’s only one mindset that I infer would facilitate people seeing this film as distressingly appalling or abhorrent, because Ghostbusters ’16 won’t be… ♦
AS GREAT OR LEGENDARY AS GHOSTBUSTERS ’84
♥ Seriously, anyone who compared this film to the original ’84 film was setting themselves up for disappointment. To focus this blurb, we’ll talk about what the comedy genius of ’84 was grounded in.
Most comedies simply write funny things for characters to say. Instead, ’84 had four principle characters and each with distinct personalities. The writers then created genuine dialogue for these characters: words they would use, inflections they would truly exhibit. The comedy came from the organic interplay between the characters and how authentic the characters felt. Disclaimer: The video below features clips from Ghostbusters 2 as well, which didn’t work as well as the original, in my opinion. Give a listen:
Notice, at about 35 seconds in, there is nothing inherently funny about someone’s hobby being that he “collects spores, molds, and fungus.” However, it’s funny because the character of Egon Spangler, played by the late Harold Ramis, or a real person like Egon, would say something or have a hobby like that. It’s believable.
At about three and a half minutes in, Peter Venkman, portrayed masterfully by Bill Murray, says that he’ll go back to Sigourney Weaver’s Dana’s apartment to “check her out,” soon after claiming that he meant to say “check out her apartment.” Because Venkman is written as a sleazy, quippy, gameshow host-like scientist, this line sounds authentic.
I could do this analyses for basically every line in ’84, but instead I’ll cite the scene about 3:50 into the video. Winston Zeddmore, played by Ernie Hudson, is the everyman character. He’s the “audience surrogate,” meaning that he’s our connection to what’s happening on the screen. If written well, these characters should say and think what we do as the audience. Winston recounts the point that the plot has gotten to, almost with disbelief, since things have gotten fairly unbelievable. Egon listens intently to everything Winston stated and out of everything he says, he comments on the fact that Winston said “Babylonian” instead of “Samarian.” Again, a genuine reaction.
The ’84 Ghostbusters film was probably written as: “Let’s write four distinct characters, give them authentic things to say, and make their reactions to what’s happening genuine.” The comedy in the ’16 film seems to be the following: “We found four funny women so let’s write funny things for them to say and do.” ♥
Either way, I’m curious to see what the final product looks like come July 2016 when Ghostbusters 2016 (ugh…) hits theatres. And if you haven’t seen the original Ghostbusters films (which is surprising if you read this far having not), give them a view!
You can read this post and others like it at JonRoyalty’s blog at JonathanMKing.Wordpress.com and follow him on Twitter @JonRoyalty