Who You Gonna Call? GHOSTBUSTERS

Film companies today have begun resurrecting, recycling and reselling old-fashioned franchises. An example of this is seen by the reboot of ‘The Ghostbusters’ (Columbia pictures; 1984). This is simply because it has been documented that these classical films are both “recognizable and iconic products rather than original, untested materials” (Proctor 2012, p.1). Therefore, the industry knows there is a mainstream audience out there for these types of films, and when considering that the materials had worked in the past, it is probable that it will make money again.

Ghostbusters (Columbia Picture; 1984) was a world phenomenon that has been held as one of the greatest movies of all time. It had a spin-off cartoon show in the last 1980’s known as ‘The real Ghostbusters’ (American Broadcasting Company; 1986) which appealed to younger audiences whom might have found the films to scary at the time. This continued to help promote the film and increase the popularity of the text. However, in 2016 a remake of the original film lobbed the world into chaos with the new Ghostbusters (Columbia Pictures; 2016) starring comedic actors Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones and Chris Hemsworth. The film presented not only empowerment of feminism, but it also included many short cameos from the original film. This was not completely appreciated by consumers considering the remake had no narrative link to the previous films or TV series. This made audiences question whether the producers had just refurbished the film for profit or whether it should be held as part of the Ghostbuster empire.

Within this case study blog, we shall investigate and conclude whether the newest Ghostbuster (Columbia Pictures; 2016) should be accepted or rejected by audiences. To decide whether the remake should be accepted as an official part of the Ghostbuster trilogy, we will explore the use of Canon and how audiences can control what is accepted as being a part of an official text. The use of intertextuality is also another concept that plays a big part in this investigation as we look at what the director has chosen to include from the original movie in relation to the reboot. Considering the idea of market liberalism perspective which states that audiences have power over the media, we should contemplate whether without approval from the consumers, would such a film like the reboot of Ghostbusters face failure or not especially when it came to the box office. Looking at similarity and difference between what the producer have constructed from the original film into the newer version we can come to a conclusion of whether this remake should be classed as canon or not.
However, before we dive into this investigation we must first establish the facts, which includes clarifying that although both movies were created by the same production company, Columbia pictures, they were directed by two different people and therefore the style of the movie was going to be unique to one another’s. Directors like to put their own signatures on their movies and subsequently we must look past the style of the film and focus on the content of the movie.

 

 

Controversy: A Game of Race And Gender

The 2016 Ghostbusters (Columbia Pictures; 2016) follows similar codes and convention as the original films narrative, and shares both the comical and horror themes of the film. “If you want to understand a book, Tv show or movie you can similarly take it apart” (Gray 2010; p.24) Deconstructing the film, the first notable difference is of course the gender swap. With many misogynistic comments being thrown around such as “Any reboots staring women couldn’t be good.” (4 Reasons Why You Should Watch Ghostbusters 2016) The controversy for the film hit a peak and even the director, Paul Feig, expressed how he felt “the drama hurt the movie at the box office” (Feig 2016). Although the remake did swap the genders around with the main Ghostbuster being women and their secretary being a male, the characters themselves were carefully constructed to have the same qualities as the original ones. Director, Paul Feig, stuck with the original directors, Ivan Reitman, idea of presenting three out of the four members of the team to have PHD’s and be experts in the field of scientific paranormal activity while then showing the fourth character to lack any scientific knowledge, but instead make up for it with being well-educated in the history of New York.

While both films show the Ghostbusters to have a secretary, the two-character play very different roles within the text. In the 1984 version of Ghostbusters the secretary, Janine is a voice of reason and responsibility handling all the phone calls and sorting out schedules and shifts for the Ghostbuster to work. She is presented wearing a shirt, pencil skirts and heels with a cardigan making her look professional and avoiding being sexualized however, in the 2016 version the secretary, Kevin is completely hopeless and was only hired due to his good looks. Gammon and Marshment argues “In recent years a number of texts have represented men as objects of the female gaze” (Feeling intimate with a media text? 1988)  While in many films today we see through Mulvey’s male gaze which is a “Sexualised way of viewing females in film, that empowers men and objectifies women” (what does the ‘male gaze’ mean, and what about a female gaze? 1975) presented women as sex symbols for men to look at.

In the new 2016 Ghostbusters the gender table is turned and the character ‘Kevin’ is represented as a sex symbol especially  seen in the scene ‘Let’s Go’ where Kevin hangs up an important phone call and then asks “Which one of these makes me look more like a doctor?” (Ghostbusters 2016) and the photos are shirtless pictures of him holding a stethoscope, one with glasses and the other without. The uses of these photo sexualized the character which is something the original film never tried to do.

Meanwhile the original film was very science based and took the theme of ‘Paranormal activity’ seriously while still including well-timed moments of comedy, the remake of Ghostbusters (Columbia Pictures 2016) plays to the other end of the spectrum by having constant comedy throughout with moments of horror slipped in during the film. We also discover that both films represent the black character stereotypically. Looking at Alvarado’s theory of racial stereotypes (Racial Stereotypes Theory 1987) we begin to recognize that both the original and the remake of Ghostbusters (Columbia Pictures) use the racial stereotypes for both Winston Zeddmore played by Ernie Hudson, and Patty Tolan played by Leslie Jones.

 

“The media have the power to dictate which representations of ethnic minorities are chosen and circulated in the public arena. It is suggested that through such representations, ethnic minorities continue to be subordinated in accordance with white ideological hegemony”

(Awan 2007; p15)

Such representation is especially seen in the newer Ghostbusters (Columbia Pictures 2016) as we see Patty as both a humorous character but also as a character that we pity at the beginning. Patty originally works in the underground train station where she gets no respect, and nobody really talks to her even though she tries to make conversation with everyone.

This follows Alvarado’s 4 stereotype theory. Alvarado stated that “The representation of ethnic groups could be divided into four distinct categories which were exotic, humorous, pitted or dangerous” (Alvarado’s Racial Stereotypes Theory 1987) In comparison to the original movie, we also see Zeddmore play the humorous, pitted character which constructs the idea that the 2016 film uses the intertextuality from the original film in order to create the characters for the reboot portraying a sense that the film could be classed as canon.

 

Ghostbuster 1984 VS 2016

There were many similarities and difference that the new film has made in accord to the original. As witnessed in the opening scene, both films start off in less populated places. The original is set in a library, while the 2016 version is set in museum. The 2016 reboot kept with the style and tone of having no dialogue similar to the 1984 version. The reboot also conveyed more comedy over horror than the original initially did, while saying this both movies presented the level of horror in which the film would proceed to show throughout giving consumers a chance to either prepare themselves for such scares or to stop watching the film if they didn’t think it was there cup of tea.

The first interaction with a ghost also conveyed a sense of intertextuality. Putting aside the better computer-generated imagery in the 2016 movie compared to the 1980’s movies, considering the evolution of technology since the first Ghostbuster, (Columbia picture 1984) the original movie showed an old lady who had once been a librarian but was now a ghost. Meanwhile in the 2016 reboot the first interaction is with a young female ghost who’s dressed in a vintage dress, creating the representation that she is a ghost from a long time ago. Intertextuality is seen as both ghosts start of peaceful and then turn quite hostile towards the Ghostbusters leading to the Ghostbuster getting slimmed on and screamed at in the face. However, there are a few things within these scenes that make them different, such as with the original, the men are being forceful with the ghost as Dan Aykroyd character ‘Ray’ Screams ‘Get her.’ which leads to the ghost turning hostile. Meanwhile, the reboot shows the women being gentle towards it, which ironically still triggers the ghost into becoming aggressive. The scenes are also located in two different places and set up differently with the ghosts being different ages and from different time period as the librarian is of a modern-day woman from when the film was made, while the newer Ghostbusters shows a ghost that’s from decades ago.

The use of location also conveyed a sense of intertextuality While in the remake we spectate that the character uses a Chinese restaurant as their work space for a majority of the film, they do finally acquire the fire station building in which they had wanted from the beginning. This is actually a throwback to the original film in which the Ghostbusters’ base was located in a fire station building.

Another noticeable modification that was made to the new 2016 film was the different choice of vehicle. The iconic ambulance in which the original movie used for the Ghostbusters transport was replaced with a hearse. Although both vehicle in either version of Ghostbusters gives a moment of comedy considering what they are normally used for in comparison to what the Ghostbusters will be using them for, the change of vehicle shows the film to be trying to reinvent itself rather than copy the original material. Nevertheless, both films shows the vehicle to have the Ghostbuster logo on them and like the ambulance in the first Ghostbusters, the newer version has a flashing light, serine and equipment strapped to the roof.

The final battles at the end of the movies are also very similar with the Ghostbusters using their gadgets to take out all the ghosts and overpower the villain of the film. The only difference is the way in which the director chose for the ghosts physically appear. In the original 1984 version, the ghost transforms himself into the cute marshmallow ghost that similar to the Ghostbusters logo cartoon while in the 2016 version the ghost starts out as the animated cartoon logo ghost and then grows bigger and greener until he’s as big as a skyscraper.

The contrast here presents the idea that Feig took inspiration from Reitman original idea of the cartoon ghost. By transforming it from something innocent to something terrifying, Feig put his own spin onto the character, making it different to the original Ghostbusters battle while still using convention from that classical scene. This proves that the remake uses intertextuality as it took the image of the logo ghost and build on. It continued to link back to the original movie in context when Rowans turns into the cartoon ghost just like in the 1984 movie.

 

To Canon Or Not To Canon

Erikson stated that, ‘every exposure to every media model provides a potential source of identification.’ (Handbook of children and media 2000; p.310) For many people the films and media that they grow up with shaped them into who they are today. Now consider if it was suddenly announced that all the Harry Potter films were going to be remade with an entirely new cast and directors without the help of J.K Rowling, who had originally created this media text. Many people who’d grown up in the 2000 with the Harry Potter books and films may feel that part of their identity is being stolen from them. Likewise, this is exactly how fans of the original Ghostbusters movies feel about the reboot.

When it was first announced that instead of getting a third instalment to the beloved movie series ‘Ghostbusters’, alternatively a remake by a different director was going to hit the street, fans rioted the internet in rage.  With the news of a new director taking over the copyrights to ‘Ghostbusters’ the only question left to ask was would it be accepted as an official part of the Ghostbuster world? For new audience they might happily accept it whether they’d see the originals or not, however for audiences who grew up or have seen the original it might feel like the production company have just recycled the film to make money.

 

The summary of canon is that “if you acknowledge one part of a media text then you must acknowledge the entire media text.” (Using the force, 2002 p.111) Therefore if audience can acknowledge the use of cameo’s and subtle link in locations and animations from the original film, then they are accepting this piece of media as canon, and so forth a part of the official Ghostbusters world.

 

Intertextuality

The Ghostbusters reboot is a Post-modernistic text seen through the use of intertextuality threaded through the content of the film. Often media like film “seek to involve the user in an experience rather than to ‘present’ a view of the world” (Branston and Stafford 2010; p.107) Unlike the original, only a majority of the reboot was filmed in New York, the director created fictional locations within the real world for the film to take place, such as the creation of the Ghostbusters base above the Chinese restaurant, the creepy hotel where Rowan has all the ghosts hidden away and the theatre where the team first face a ghost publicly as the Ghostbusters. The use of their transport and uniforms also links to the original film as both Ghostbusters wear similar overalls while the original character have the logo on there costumes, the 2016 characters wear the logo colours as strips across there uniform.

For many fans the 2016 Ghostbuster has got under their skins for the simplistic reason that the three original remaining Ghostbusters, played by Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson or Dan Aykroyd all end up staring in this reboot but only as short cameo’s. Playing all new characters, there’s no link for these character between the original movie and the new remake. Pitching the question, what is the point of them being in the film at all? “It’s a parody, and at the same time it’s a type of art and history” (Rewriting/Reprising in Literature 2009; p.30) The recreation of such a timeless film would not be able to stand without the original movies in which Ghostbusters (Columbia Pictures 2016) has been able to cameo off of. The films themselves helped create a mainstream audience for the industry to be able to target and then also aim at a new niche audience who may or may not have seen the originals.

The use of a green chubby ghost also shows intertextuality as in the original we see Bill Murray’s character get attacked by a less animated green ghost and then later in the remake the Ghostbusters watch as a green animated chubby ghost steals their vehicle. The intertextuality of using the same characteristic for the ghost helps link the newer Ghostbuster to the original. This is also seen through both versions of the film having the exact same logo for the Ghostbuster. It’s one of the first sign in the film that when Ghostbusters (Columbia Pictures) got rebooted the director and production company wanted it to be recognized as part of the synergy by using intertextuality and having the same ghost cartoon with a red circle and line through it in all its products.

Reflection

Both the original movies and Ghostbuster (Columbia pictures 2016) made good profit through both the product and the merchandise that surrounded it. ‘Fans consume particular types of information that becomes personal property to them’ (Hoxter 2000; p.91) This information can even be fictional such as fact about characters or quotes from films. A memorable quote from the original film by Bill Murray was

The 2016 reboot was very cleaver not to overwritten any of the memorable lines from the original film, allowing audiences to separate to two as individual films rather than a remake. When analysing the 2016 trailer in comparison to the original, both trailers start of scary showing supernatural horrors that put the audience into the mind frame of horror thriller but then lighten up with the original movie playing the theme tune ‘Who you goanna call…Ghostbuster’ and the remake using the comical line ‘Nobody should have to face such horrors…accept for you girls’ Both of which help the viewers to understand the genre and tone for the film. We also have to acknowledge the advertising through the use of the films sound tracks. Both soundtracks are aim at the intended audience for the time the films were released. Ray Parker Jr’s hit ‘Ghostbusters’ was a pop rock jazz song which was the type of music for the 1980’s. Likewise the music written for the reboot such as G-Easy’s ‘Saw it coming’, Elle King’s ‘Good Girl’ and ‘Ghostbusters’ by Fall out boys are all popular genres in today’s charts.

Meanwhile a noticeable change in which the films contrasted each other, came from how they chose to promote the movies, or more to the point the importance of the characters in the movies. Both films had trailers, merchandise and poster promotions but while the reboot had all the character shown off on the posters including their assistant ‘Kevin’ who’s equally an important part of the film, the original film did not. On the original poster for Ghostbusters (Columbia Pictures 1984) neither Ernie Hudson or Annie Potts appear. This portrays the idea that the original film was misogynistic and racist. Although Ghostbusters 2 (Columbia Pictures 1989) included Ernie Hudson on the promo posters and in the trailer, when the original film came out Hudson’s part within it, got cut in half giving him less screen time. This presents the difference between the original and the reboot especially when considering Leslie Jones’s character came in half way through the film much like Hudson’s and she was still fully included in the film posters and did not face her part being cut in half.

 

 

Conclusion

In conclusion the original film and reboot share many similarities, however, there are just as many differences in these two media texts, putting aside the gender swap card, one that cannot be ignore is the fact that the original movie was completely filmed in New York while the reboot wasn’t e.g. the final battle, only half the scenes for that sequence were filmed in New York. Another obvious difference was the change of narrative, villain and the cast. With the original film focusing on using a mythological creature/ghost that possessed a woman, the reboot had the character Rowan start an apocalypse because he was angry at the world for treating him badly.

On the other hand, with the use of cameo’s, the links to original characteristics of the film and the same genre highlights of horror and comedy, Ghostbuster (Columbia Pictures 2016) actually has lots in common with the original. Therefore, audiences must accept this media text as Canon due to the use of synergy throughout the reboot and in order to accept the short cameos of the original Ghostbusters (Columbia Pictures 1984) and all the subtle links to the original films such as the green ghost, logo and location, they must come to the conclusion that the reboot is a part of the Ghostbusters empire.

References

Awan, F. (2007). Young People, Identity and the Media: A Study of Conceptions of Self-Identity Among Youth in Southern England. [ebook] October 2007/Bournemouth university: Bournemouth university, pp.15-17. Available at: http://www.artlab.org.uk/fatimah-awan-03.pdf [Accessed 25 Apr. 2018].

Booth, K. (2017). Paul Feig Regrets That Ghostbusters Turned Into A Cause. [online] Bleedingcool.com. Available at: https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/11/21/paul-feig-regrets-ghostbusters-cause/ [Accessed 20 Apr. 2018].

Branston, G. and Stafford, R. (2010). The media student’s book. 5th ed. London: Routledge, p.107.

Brooker, W. (2002). Using the force; creativity, community and Star Wars fans. New York, London: Continuum, p.111.

Feig, P. (2016).  Ghostbusters [DVD] Massachusetts, New York: Columbia Pictures.

GeekOutlaw (2016). MOVIE REVIEW: 2016 GHOSTBUSTERS Remake ‘Answers the Calls’ as The Worst Film I’ve Ever Seen- CGI Ghost Comparison. [image] Available at: http://geekoutlaw.com/movie-review-2016-ghostbusters-remake-answers-call-worst-film-ive-ever-seen/ [Accessed 7 May 2018].

GeekOutlaw (2016). Chris Hemsworth Comparing Photo. [image] Available at: http://geekoutlaw.com/movie-review-2016-ghostbusters-remake-answers-call-worst-film-ive-ever-seen/ [Accessed 7 May 2018].

Gray, J. (2010). Show Sold Separately. New York: New York University Press, pp.23-25.

Hill, M. (2002). Fan Culture. London: Routledge, p.91.

Kat (2016). 4 Reasons Why You Should Watch Ghostbusters. [Blog] Culture War Report. Available at: https://culturewarreporters.com/tag/ghostbusters/ [Accessed 4 May 2018].

Mail Online (2014). What happened to Ernie Hudson? Forgotten fourth Ghostbuster reveals franchise was ‘most painful’ part of his career… but he’d love to make another [image] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2738009/Ernie-Hudson-reveals-Ghostbusters-painful-career.html [Accessed 2 May 2018].

Kulaszewicz, K. (2015). Racism and the Media: A Textual Analysis. [ebook] Minnesota: St. Catherine University, p.8. Available at: https://sophia.stkate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1478&context=msw_papers [Accessed 9 May 2018]

Maisonnat, C., Paccaud-Huguet, J. and Ramel, A. (2009). Rewriting/reprising in literature. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, p.30.

Nerdy Show (2014). Ghost busters Film Commentary. [podcast] Ghostbusters Resurrection. Available at: https://nerdyshow.com/2014/12/ghostbusters-film-commentary/ [Accessed 8 Apr. 2018].

Proctor, W. (2012). Regeneration & Rebirth: Anatomy of the Franchise Reboot. [ebook] Kingston: University of Kingston, pp.1-6. Available at: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/scope/documents/2012/february-2012/proctor.pdf [Accessed 25 Apr. 2018].

Quinn, N. (2016). Alvarado’s Racial Stereotypes Theory (1987). [online] Blogger.com. Available at: http://nieevequinnlcm1617.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/alvarados-racial-stereotypes-theory-1987.html [Accessed 26 Apr. 2018].

Reitman, I. (1984). Ghostbusters [DVD] New York: Columbia Pictures.

Resource. (2009). Representation. [online] Available at: http://resource.download.wjec.co.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/vtc/2015-16/15-16_int_04/website/eng/Printable%20resource/Representation.pdf [Accessed 28 Apr. 2018].

Simmons, A. (2016). Explainer: what does the ‘male gaze’ mean, and what about a female gaze?. [online] The Conversation. Available at: http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-the-male-gaze-mean-and-what-about-a-female-gaze-52486 [Accessed 9 May 2018].

Singer, D. and Singer, J. (2001). Handbook of children and the media. Thousand Oaks, Calif.; London: Sage Publications., p.310.

Tallis, J. (2012). Feeling intimate with a media text?. [online] Available at: http://contemporaryexperimentalperformance12.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/2012/11/12/feeling-intimate-with-a-media-text/ [Accessed 8 May 2018].

Young, P. (2016). Ghostbusters: Comparing The Reboot To The Original Movie. [Blog] Screen Rant. Available at: https://screenrant.com/ghostbusters-reboot-compared-original/ [Accessed 18 Apr. 2018].

Youtube (2016). Ghostbusters 2016. No Review. I refuse.  Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8X2A7wHyQ [Accessed 4 Apr. 2018].

YouTube (2016). Intertextuality: Hollywood’s New Currency. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=84&v=QeAKX_0wZWY [Accessed 1 May 2018]