Ghostbusters

The remake is better than the original. I know that's a controversial position, so I wanted to just get it out of the way.

I should also get out of the way that I liked the sequel to the original better than the original, another unpopular opinion.

I hadn't been thinking that specifically. I enjoyed the 2016 version a lot, and would love to see a sequel for it, but I hadn't been thinking too much about comparison.

I was reading fascinating pieces on the new movie, and I was enjoying that about it. For example, one article went over each of the four women and how their academic paths would have gone, from self-educating due to a lack of opportunities, relying on mentors, and the politics involved with getting tenure.

Part of what impressed me was realizing how much they conveyed without spending a lot of time on it. It was accurate to academia, but also efficient. I appreciated those little touches, which I hadn't thought about during the movie.

I liked the remake then, and want to see it again now, but I hadn't thought of it as a great movie. There were some parts where they would stop and be a little self-indulgent. Those sequences were funny, but not relevant to the plot. I enjoyed the asides, but could see them as possible flaws. Then I re-watched the original. Okay, I know audiences have a shorter attention span today, and we are used to quicker editing, but the initial set up really drags.

I knew that there was chauvinistic creepiness - some that I remembered myself, some that I was reminded about in other articles. It was worse than I remembered, but what really stuck out was how inconsistent Venkman is. He is a super creepy jerk in the lab test, differently creepy, but then really sweet, and all over the map. My best guess is that they were setting it up to have his story arc be one where finding actual proof of the supernatural (along with attraction to Dana) forces him to cast off his immaturity and obnoxiousness and become a real romantic hero. That would not be an unreasonable plot.

However, put the uneven pace and the uneven character together and I think there is also a basic writing issue, where it is plot-driven instead of character-driven. Some of the scenes felt so different from each other, as if they were from different films with different directors. Perhaps coming from a sketch comedy background makes that happening easier, because you are used to switching gears anyway.

That may have also been an issue with the believability of the villain. I don't know if everyone finds the remake's villain believable (I thought he seemed fairly credible) but there is no way that an EPA bureaucrat is going to come over and unplug possibly radioactive equipment without having some kind of containment plan. Peck was just the villain about whom you could make dick jokes, and was not well-conceived beyond that.

(Also, I thought the first time "Don't cross the streams" was brought up was really muddled considering how important it was going to be to the final resolution.)

So it occurs to me that maybe the reason that I liked the sequel better wasn't merely the fun of the Statue of Liberty and Jackie Wilson saving the day, but also maybe that having more familiarity with their characters, and more experience under their belt, Ackroyd and Ramis did a better job of writing.

That shouldn't take anything away from the thrill of seeing giant Stay-Puft the first time as kids. It made an impression and that lasts. There is nothing wrong with that.

The remake is still a better movie.