Why the success or failure of the Ghostbuster's reboot will not stand or fall on the gender of the leads

This poster has one of the better cast shots, which
is why I used one from the sequel.
Also, one of the men on this poster isn't on that cast
list. If it was the black guy people might make
assumptions!

Okay, so my title is a bit of a gimme:  the success or failure of the Ghostbuster's reboot will not stand or fall on the gender of the leads because claiming that casting women in the main roles is 'feminazing a classic' or 'gynocentric' are as much pathetically transparent misogynist strawmen as claiming that 'women aren't as funny as men'. It's also a little disingenuous, because casting women to lead Hollywood movies sets one up for the gauntlet of a production and marketing machine that sees male stars as the only bankable assets. Any film in the action or science fiction genres that doesn't cast a 'name' male lead is taking a gamble that the studio won't royally bollocks its advertising and bury it in a release dead zone so that they can blame their predicted poor turn out on overall low ticket sales, but I for one don't think that it's a gamble that it's wrong to take.

Also, this is not to say that the casting of the leads can't sink the film, just that it won't be because they're women. Casting the wrong women will kill a film as surely as casting the wrong men, but given that the script is unwritten, anyone claiming that casting a woman in purely hypothetical role X will ruin the movie since role X is clearly intended for a male actor (maybe that should be role Y?) is either the greatest prophet since Nostradamus* or talking out of their arse.

So, and working purely from my own NSHO, what are the factors on which Ghostbusters not-actually-3 will sink or swim?

To start with, what were the keys to the success of the original? To understand that, it helps to see that the film almost never happened at all; at least not the way it ended up.

Dan Ackroyd produced the first super-high concept version of the script as a vehicle for himself and John Belushi. Ivan Reitman saw the impracticality of the script and Ackroyd worked with Harold Ramis to ground the concept in the present day. The death of John Belushi led to Bill Murray being brought in, with Ramis - only an occasional actor - and Ackroyd as the scientific members of the Ghostbusters, and Ernie Hudson rounding out the crew as the straight man. Sigourney Weaver was the serious acting talent and Rick Moranis was annoying, but in a role that called for him to be so. The song 'Ghostbusters' was a sensation, despite not being very good on a musical level.

The result was almost a perfect storm of action, special effects and humour, making it hard to pin down why the film worked. There is no better illustration of this illusive quality than Ghostbusters II, which reunited the same team, but failed to please on the same level. Nevertheless, there was enough residual energy for The Real Ghostbusters to run another two years and Extreme Ghostbusters to... well, get made in the first place, and for people to feel a massively proprietorial affection for the original movie on its 30th anniversary**.

Perhaps the key lesson to learn from GII is that 'more of the same' is unlikely to cut it. A new Ghostbusters film is going to have to do something new. Nevertheless, its commercial success confirmed the affection for the original cast and characters. Obviously, the longed-for sequel with the original cast starring is never going to happen now, with the death of Harold Ramis, but if anything is to be done, the public - or at least vocal sections of it - will expect some serious cameos.

With that in mind, a hard reboot (as of 10/10/14 the confirmed direction for Paul Feig's female-led offering) is probably the thing most likely to kill the film. It's not definite, but it essentially squanders any nostalgic loyalty to the franchise and brings the commercial future of the movie down to the here and now.

Wow; when I say it like that it feels like a good thing, but the danger is that the association, once no longer a blessing, will become a bane. In addition to losing the resentful fans of the older film, there is an automatic skepticism of a remake/reboot to overcome. It's a shame, because done right the positive association with the original Ghostbusters would have been a good way to launch a female-led sequel with a boost to take it past Hollywood's usually gynophobia. As it is, there is every chance that the reboot factor will kill the film before a single frame hits the digital medium and idiots around the world will say: "See; we told you women weren't funny."

In an interview with Rolling Stone***, Feig said the following:

1. "My favorite thing to do is work with funny women. I was like, what if it was an all-female cast? If they were all women? Suddenly, my mind kind of exploded: that would be really fun,"
2. "I love the first one so much, I don't want to do anything to ruin the memory of that. So it just felt like, let's just restart it because then we can have new dynamics. I want the technology to be even cooler. I want it to be really scary, and I want it to happen in our world today that hasn't gone through it so it's like, oh my God what's going on?"

On the first point: On a high concept like Ghostbusters, I can't help but feel that this is a bad reason to fix on an all-female cast from the get-go. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but don't you want to see what's in the script first? Still, fuck it; if that's how you roll as a director maybe that's just what's going to bring out your best work, and if you're working with a writer you know writes those parts well (I'm not really familiar with Feig's collaborations with Katie Dippold, but clearly they feel they work well as a team) then go for it.

On the second... I don't think that anything in that want list couldn't be done with a 'new generation' sequel, except wanting the world to be a clean slate, and remember how I was saying of GII that it turns out more of the same isn't what people wanted then? I'm not convinced that it's what is wanted now. For fans of the old, it's a do-over of something that didn't need to be done over, and from the perspective of the project as a new film, relaunching just means that you're retreading old ground instead of making your own mark.

There exists a Ghostbusters film about the supernatural being forced into the public perception; there exists a Ghostbusters film about the world trying to deny it. Why not have this film be about a world that thinks it's ready for the next Gozer, the next Vigo? Hell, why not go balls to the wall and use the goodwill of a Ghostbusters project to make Ackroyd's original concept?

Ghostbusters hit the perfect combination of writing, cast and direction, in part from the combination of Bill Murray's improvisational performance and Ramis and Ackroyd's investment in their own script, which allows them to project Egon and Ray's total commitment to the high concepts of the movie which would otherwise seem laughable. The absence of anyone as utterly involved in the movie as Ackroyd was is likely to hurt the film, and the chances of pulling together an ensemble as great as the original line-up is slim, not because the female performers aren't out there - or, indeed, the male performers to pull off a reboot - but because the team-up in Ghostbusters was relatively untried, thus bringing in no preconceptions outside of Murray and Ackroyd's work on Saturday Night Live, and that it worked as well as it did a matter of ineffable alchemy. 

No producer can cast for the ineffable, as much as they might try. In other words, it is possible that such a cast could be pulled together for a rebooted Ghostbusters, but you couldn't do it a-purpose.

Ultimately, the film's success will depend on a multitude of factors, and its commercial and artistic success may vary wildly. For my money, the reboot is the greatest reason for skepticism, but I think that commercially that is going to end up shackled to an all female cast like an anvil.

* An attempt to do a prophet/profit pun fell down based on the fact that I don't know who posts obscene profits these days.
** I saw it at the cinema; I'm so old.
*** Rolling Stone online, http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/new-ghostbusters-film-will-be-series-reboot-20141009; get me, citing sources like some kind of professional.