They were showing Ghostbusters 1 & 2 on TV and it made me wonder if the plan was always the reboot from 2016. I know I heard Bill Murray held up a 3rd movie, but I am honestly surprised nobody said "a female reboot makes no sense" in a board meeting at Sony. I remember they wanted to do sequels but the movie didn't do well enough.
It would have made much more sense to have the remaining crew pass the torch to their kids (a mix of men and women) or something like that. I hope this upcoming movie does well. I remember when it was announced people were screeching on twitter and one guy said "you shouldn't give toxic fans the movie they wanted to begin with". Lesson number 3,543 why you don't listen to Twitter morons.
Also, Ghostbusters 2016 was the first time I started hearing the narrative that if you don't like a movie you are a bad person and seeing critics lose any sense of actual evaluation. Also the first time I saw the now common "the original was never that good" headline which always makes me want to ask "then why are they re-doing it".
Back to my original question was the all female reboot always what was planned?
Saying passing the torch to the mix, etc. it’s all playing their game. The need to change the identity of the cast should never be a process of writing. A good character is that despite their identity.
You mean despite the actor. James Bond and Doctor Who would be good examples of this (and seriously, if it had been one or two seasons of "youngish female Doctor + older male Companion", it might have been a decent lark, (especially if the stories had been worthwhile) but it's just the OTHER things they just had to throw in along with that (and the stupid baity stories, not to mention that last bit of world-breaking trash) that ruined it. And now did you see, she's gone, and oh, they're finally getting a ginger, apparently. But of course he's a flamey as a dragon with the hiccups.)
True