Original Ghostbusters Star Ernie Hudson Says Sony Made a “Mistake” Rebooting the Franchise in 2016

[Shaka Zulu]

Yes, he believed that the 2016 movie was like that, forgetting that if his co-star Bill Murray had even bothered to want to come back as Peter Venkman for a third movie while Harold Ramis was still able to do a third movie, Sony wouldn't have bothered with a remake; as it was, when Ramis died in 2014, it was not a question of if Sony was going to do a remake, but when they would do it.

Original Ghostbusters star Ernie Hudson believes Sony Pictures made a "mistake" rebooting the franchise in 2016's Ghostbusters: Answer the Call. The Paul Feig-directed remake of the 1984 classic comedy re-imagined the Ghostbusters as new characters Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig), Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy), Jillian Holtzman (Kate McKinnon), and Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a team operating in modern-day New York City. Hudson and his Ghostbusters castmates, except Rick Moranis and the late Harold Ramis, made cameo appearances as all-new characters, different from the original roles they will reprise in director Jason Reitman's Ghostbusters: Afterlife.

"[Afterlife is] not a reboot. Because when you say reboot, which is the third movie, the one with the ladies – that I actually liked a lot. I definitely loved everybody who was in it," Hudson told Living Life Fearless. "Paul Feig, I'm still fans of theirs – they tried to do a reboot. And a reboot, to me, means you're trying to do the movie over. Another version of what we already did. And I think that was a mistake. It wasn't a continuation or an extension of [the original]."

That's because it wasn't meant to be, Mr. Hudson.

Hudson continued, "It was somehow a different universe there. You know what I mean? It's kind of like us, but it's us, but not us. In that universe, they're women. I don't know. That was a choice that was made."

In Afterlife, set 30 years after Ghostbusters II, Hudson reprises his role as Winston Zeddemore opposite Dan Aykroyd's Ray Stantz and Bill Murray's Peter Venkman. "This is Ghostbusters," Hudson stresses about the new movie from Jason Reitman, son of original Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman. "As we move on through the world, 20, 30 years later, it's still within the same universe. And the other was Ghostbusters. But like I said, it just felt like a retelling of the same story, which automatically causes comparisons that you really don't need to be doing. I'm saying this is how I feel like. But this is Ghostbusters later. It's been 30-35 years since we did the Ghostbusters’. And so this is years later. But definitely, it's the same universe."

Ghostbusters: Afterlife opens in theaters on November 11.

Original Ghostbusters Star Ernie Hudson Says Sony Made a “Mistake” Rebooting the Franchise in 2016

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Gaith]

Um... yeah? As the Red Letter Media crew discuss in their review, had GB16 been developed after 2015's one-two punch of Jurassic World and The Force Awakens, both massive successes that got respectable or better reviews, it's just about inconceivable that Sony would have opted for a full reboot rather than a soft reboot/continuation a la Afterlife. It's one thing to do a hard reboot of a franchise that's barely remembered (see: Westworld), but today's nostalgia-driven fans of beloved older franchises seem to want tangible, in-universe connections to the past. Now that the gender-related furor over the GB16 is well behind us, the most notable thing about it is probably its status as the last gasp of hard reboots of popular franchises, for some time, at least. And I think Hudson gets that perfectly well.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Awesome Possum]

 

[Tosk]

I reckon even Sony knew they shouldn't have approached it as a do-over. That's why the early trailers were mildly misleading about it being set in the same continuity. Feig didn't want to set it in the same universe and he convinced Pascal this was the right way to go. A bunch of lost money and a tarnished brand says they were wrong.

That's because it wasn't meant to be, Mr. Hudson.

He knows that, that's what he's saying. That it was a mistake to go that route.

 

[Reverend]

Of course it was a mistake. It bombed, and deservedly so.
But not because it was a reboot instead of a continuation, and not because "urrr, girls! yuck!" It's because the script was a steaming pile utter terrordog shite. Indeed, the fact that the only entertaining parts of that movie were a handful of the improv bits proves that the comedic talents of the female cast was the only thing the movie really had going for it.

All that said, even under the best circumstances, it's usually not advisable to remake a *good* movie, because you're instantly making it an uphill battle for yourself, and it almost never works!
But sure, it's possible to reboot it and change it up to make it it's own thing. The problem was they changed all the wrong things. The smart move would have been to dust off Aykroyd's utterly bonkers first draft set in the near-ish future where ghosts and other trans-dimensionals are common pests, the cast are basically overworked exterminators, Stay Puft walks out of the Hudson in the second act, and then use THAT as a jumping off point.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I reckon even Sony knew they shouldn't have approached it as a do-over. That's why the early trailers were mildly misleading about it being set in the same continuity. Feig didn't want to set it in the same universe and he convinced Pascal this was the right way to go. A bunch of lost money and a tarnished brand says they were wrong.

As I said, what was Sony supposed to do? They knew that fans were clamoring for another movie, but with Ramis dead, the execs figured that just bringing back the three might not work or fail, so they took a chance on a reboot. How the fuck were they to know that the fans would turn out to be such childish, sexist (and in the case of Leslie Jones) racist assholes? Also, the brand was tarnished by them, not by the movie, and by them acting like such possessive assholes of the franchise (people who are fans of media franchises should have enough sense to know that they don't own said franchises, they're simply fans of them. Owning any movies/TV shows and seeing them umpteen times doesn't change that fact. Nor does it mean that the rights holder of said franchise can't remake/reboot said franchise.)

He knows that, that's what he's saying. That it was a mistake to go that route.

And yet, he starred in the movie in a cameo role.

As for how bad the film is, I have a great argument against that.

Of course it was a mistake. It bombed, and deservedly so.
But not because it was a reboot instead of a continuation, and not because "urrr, girls! yuck!" It's because the script was a steaming pile utter terrordog shite. Indeed, the fact that the only entertaining parts of that movie were a handful of the improve bits proves that the female cast was the only thing the movie really had going for it.

And yet, said 'pile of Terror Dog shit' has a loft of female fans, many of them young girls, and a lot of women defend it (check the link above.) That's means it'll be reconsidered being a flop, and will be liked by those girls growing up (check out the cosplays of Holtzman and Yates here):

I'm going to bet that time will prove me right, and haters like you will be left in the dustbin of history.

 

[JD]

I think even Sony seems to think rebooting it was a mistake since they decided to go back to the original universe, rather than waiting longer and trying another reboot.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I'm going to bet that time will prove me right, and haters like you will be left in the dustbin of history.

You realize there's such thing as a middle ground, right?

I largely agree with Reverend's post, however, I also think all four of the female leads (especially Kate McKinnon) were excellent but were let down by a terrible script. People who cosplay those characters are doing it because of the actresses' performances, not necessarily because of the film itself.

I watched it again sometime last year and while it wasn't as horrible as I remembered, it was still very rough. The leads shined where they could but they could only do so much.

 

[Tosk]

As I said, what was Sony supposed to do?

Make a movie set in the same continuity. That doesn't mean it has to just be a sequel with the same cast. You could transplant ATC into the original universe (at the script stage) without much effort. Many people don't like it when the originals are basically discarded, so you give yourself an uphill battle when you do so. Remaking a great and beloved movie adds even more risk.

childish, sexist racist assholes possessive assholes haters

And that's a big part of what went wrong. In my opinion, acting like there were only two groups was a major mistake. Pretending that we are all either "People who love the direction" or "racists/sexists" is not a good move. All you do is lose the people who may have been swayed by a good movie. Not that we got one, but it certainly could have been good.

I'm going to bet that time will prove me right, and haters like you will be left in the dustbin of history.

Why do you have to make it personal?

The movie is already mostly forgotten. But I have zero problem with people who are fans of it. More power to them.

 

[Reverend]

And yet, said 'pile of Terror Dog shit' has a loft of female fans, many of them young girls, and a lot of women defend it (check the link above.) That's means it'll be reconsidered being a flop, and will be liked by those girls growing up (check out the cosplays of Holtzman and Yates here):

I explicitly said the SCRIPT was shite. I also explicitly said that the ladies in question were the best, and indeed possibly only good thing about that movie. I'm glad they've garnered the approval of, and inspired many female fans as they deserve that recognition, and the fanbase could certainly use some diversity. It's a shame that the movie itself is still garbage, but here we are.

Now if you're done misrepresenting my words, kindly back the hell up off my arse.

I largely agree with Reverend's post, however, I also think all four of the female leads (especially Kate McKinnon) were excellent but were let down by a terrible script.

Holtzmann may just be my favourite Ghostbuster. Like, neck and neck with Egon.

 

[Gaith]

As I said, what was Sony supposed to do?

As we're saying, they should have started with a good script. Not foreseeing the popularity of cross-generational soft reboots was an awkward and unfortunate flub, but an understandable one. Deciding to produce a nothingburger script, however, is just poor filmmaking.

 

[Jax]

I didn't dislike the movie (the extended version was the best version) but I don't love it like GB1 & 2. The film introduced me to wonderful Kate McKinnon whom I felt was the best of the team characters. Personally I would of done a sequel (mixed gender team) with some of the new team being kids of the original characters. I would also of used the original actors to pass the torch like Spock did in the Star Trek 2009 movie.

Doing a reboot in the manner they did and using the original actors in different roles was always going to be tough to sell. The also chose the wrong director IMO.

 

[Saul]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but from the beginning it didn't seem to make sense to go the reboot route in an era that was starting to embrace nostalgia. How did selling it as a female lead reboot entice new fans while hanging onto the hardcore ones? Sure, you could blame the script but there was a lot of improv comedy too that didn't work, was left in the movie and felt out of place because it wasn't funny and didn't move the story forward.
It's an OK movie and if they introduce a multiverse idea down the line I wouldn't mind seeing these characters back.

 

[Gaith]

Sure, you could blame the script but there was a lot of improv comedy too that didn't work, was left in the movie and felt out of place because it wasn't funny and didn't move the story forward.

There's two kinds of improv: there's the kind where an actor, thanks to the richness of the script, has a specific flash of inspiration that adds color to the moment while contributing to, or at least not distracting from, the story. Then there's another kind, where a director says "digital cameras mean we can fool around at length for pennies, so feel free to say whatever pops into your head - doesn't matter if it deepens the character or serves the story, just make me laugh here in this particular moment!"

The first kind gives you Han telling Leia "I know" in ESB. The second kind is Chris Hemsworth's entire performance in GB16.

 

[JD]

Personally I would of done a sequel (mixed gender team) with some of the new team being kids of the original characters. I would also of used the original actors to pass the torch like Spock did in the Star Trek 2009 movie.

And it looks like that is possibly what they're doing with Afterlife, although in that case it looks like we're getting a grandkid instead of a kid. Well at least one of their kids is a character, but she's an adult, and doesn't appear to be a member of the "team".

 

[wayoung]

I'm a huge Ghostbusters fan. It was my favourite thing as a kid. I thought the 2016 film was garbage but going to comic cons I've found it has a massive & passionate LGBTQ following to whom 2016 was just as important (if not more so) as the original was to me.

So, good on them. I have my GB, and I'm glad they have theirs.

 

[Caretaker]

It was an okay film - not bad but not great. But there was no need for it to be a clean reboot - it's not a continuity-heavy franchise (at least, sticking to the two existing feature films are concerned). The script could very easily have been rewritten to be a Ghostbusters III.

 

[Kelthaz]

Well it's not just Ghostbusters. Star Trek did the same thing with the Kelvin timeline -- to a bit more success than GB 2016 to be fair -- but nevertheless they quickly abandoned that idea and returned to the Prime Universe in full force. I hope this is a good lesson to studios that it's never -- or at least rarely -- a good idea to throw out all the worldbuilding that you've established for a fresh slate. You can follow new characters, set the story 1,000 years in the future, and even retcon elements that don't work anymore, but do not throw out everything that came before. Build on what came before and use it to grow the story.

 

[Owain Taggart]

It would have also been a better idea to set it in a different place than NYC, because there's no reason there can't be another franchise in another big city, and it would have been easier to consolidate alongside the original movies, as a new crew doing their own thing, rather than trying to replace an iconic movie in the same location. I like that they're setting Afterlife somewhere else. It allows for something fresh along with expanding the story to somewhere else.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I think another city could've helped give the 2016 movie its own character. San Francisco would be interesting, I think the LGBT connection and Chinatown could work with some of the elements seen in the movie.