To me, admittedly having yet to see the film, my guess is that Max Landis' take on the film is pretty accurate:
- The internet is full of scary people with an axe to grind; and,
- The film is...you know...just a film. Not amazing, not godawful, has some funny bits, has some weak bits.
In the end, I'm still disappointed they killed the old continuity, and I think that they courted controversy through the casting. But, also in the end, it doesn't really matter because the film was just another "meh" 2010s comedy. It didn't smash down social barriers, it didn't ruin people's childhoods, it wasn't a major blow for feminism, and it wasn't an unbearable slight to men. It's just a run-of-the-mill 2010s comedy.
And, to me, that raises an entirely different issue surrounding how this film was made. The whole idea here was to tap an established comedy brand, expand the fanbase to an underserved demographic, and turn the whole thing into a larger franchise. Key in that effort, though, was finding the right brand to tap. So, the studio, which already owned the GB brand, alighted on that as the solution, assuming that the brand, coupled with a hot director, and a cast designed to lure in said underserved demographic, would be enough.
It apparently wasn't. The film isn't a financial disaster, but I'm sure it's rather a disappointment for Sony that it didn't blaze out of the gate on opening weekend with a +$80M take. Instead, it's a middling success that will probably break even or maybe turn a slight profit, and where money will be made on the licensing fees, which may or may not hold value for round 2 (assuming there is one, which I suppose is a fair assumption).
In the meantime, the internet got itself worked up into a good frothing lather about the film and what it represented. SJWs ruining everything, a punching bag for sexist a-holes, a standard round which various camps could mobilize to support or attack the film as representative of...something. The only thing this film really represents to me, though, is an overreliance in Hollywood on branded IP to sell tickets. I think, if anything, that Ghostbusters is a failure of THAT aspect of the business. Not as big a failure as, say, Fantastic Four, but I think it does show that you can't just slap any old brand on a film and assume the cash will just roll in. Likewise, you can't JUST tap a director that people seem to like and assume he can automagically generate amazing box-office returns.
Paul Feig went into this project fairly lukewarm about the whole thing. And while he certainly rallied after being given carte blanche (or perhaps carte gris...) to do whatever he wanted (if you ignore the studio notes, of course), perhaps that lack of enthusiasm shone through in the final product. Perhaps the reason why Ghostbusters is JUST an average 2010s comedy that -- aside from the associated controversy -- will probably be forgotten in another 10 years, perhaps the reason audiences said "Yeah, it's fine. Something to watch on a boring summer weekend," is because it is exactly the sum of its parts: a lukewarm director, a reheated brand that probably should've been mothballed, and a studio with delusions of Marvel-esque franchises, all combining awkwardly into a film that doesn't totally suck, but isn't anything particularly special.
Maybe it's time we all just....let the film be. Let it be what it is, let it speak for itself, and let the audience react accordingly. Ghostbusters isn't a political cause, it's not an attack on or defense of anything. It's...just a run-of-the-mill 2010s comedy film.
