Paul Feig Explains Why He Didn't Just Make Ghostbusters 3

By Simon Gallagher / July 4, 2016

A lot has been said about Paul Feig's decision to reimagine Ghostbusters as a female-centric comedy that didn't bring back the original cast as a direct sequel. Some of it has even been measured and sensible, along with the absolute cacophony of idiocy rom knuckle-draggers who call anyone berating them an angry SJW.

Imagine being Paul Feig in that situation: you're entrusted with making a new film in a franchise you love - so much, in fact, that you don't want to tarnish the original by over-extending it without two of the key cast members. And suddenly you're overcome with a deluge of negativity based solely on the fact that you've cast women, and that you're daring to "blemish" the original franchise by adding to it. It's lunacy.

Feig has been talking to Den Of Geek about the process, candidly talking about the Sony leaks, how he got the Ghostbusters gig and his reactions to the negativity, and he revealed why he approached the film the way he did. to distil his points down to a few key arguments (because you should go and read the full interview), here's the gist of why he chose to reinvent rather than simply make Ghostbusters 3, which he was offered...

"So I read the script. I thought it was really good, and by writers that I really like. Etan Cohen, an amazing talent, worked on it too. But the core thing of the sequel was, in all the scripts I’d read, that there was a new team that had come together. The old team had been forgotten. Then the old team showed up, and gave them the stuff and trained the new team up.To me, it felt like it’d been so long since Ghostbusters 2 even. It felt like a big gap. I love Ghostbusters 2, but even the way they had to start that up with them being disgraced - how would the Ghostbusters be disgraced after they’d saved New York? Because they left it in a mess? Would they be mad at Neil Armstrong for leaving a golf ball on the moon?It all added up to me saying I can’t figure my way into this. So I passed."

He makes a good point, and one of my biggest gripes with Ghostbusters 2. Rather than being heralded as the genius heroes who saved the world and New York City, the opening of the sequel has them still fighting skepticism and ungrateful locals, as if everyone somehow forgot about that GIANT WALKING MARSHMALLOW MAN attack that JUST happened.

To do that again would have been criminal. The original Ghostbusters should have been anointed kings of the City, not rubbed out of existence to be revived when the next generation need their help. It's narrative garbage.

So, Feig didn't want to destroy the narrative legacy of the film. That should be celebrated, not criticised.

Obviously the issue of not having Bill Murray involved (since he refused to play a part in Ghostbusters 3) and then Harold Ramis' death further complicated any chance to bring back the original cast in their former roles. But Feig also didn't want to cast men - particularly those he'd worked with before in the past, because of the weight of expectation and the issue of direct comparisons:

"I’d been reading all these articles about the guys they were thinking of casting, and I know all those guys and I love them [the likes of Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill had been linked]... But at the same time, every time I’d read their names you’d suddenly start comparing them to Bill, Dan, Harold and Ernie. It clouds your head."

Again, if you're criticising distinction while attempting to hold the sanctity of the originals up, you're running out of logic in the face of his points.

Feig also spoke of the inevitability of Sony making a version of Ghostbusters 3 whether he was involved or not. For him, if the studio was that determined, he as a fan saw an opportunity to make it the best it could be. No desire to rake the originals' legacy through the mud needlessly, no wilful suggestion to ruin the film for some personal, barbed agenda, just an awareness that someone, somewhere was going to do it. So why not him?

"If I wasn’t doing this, I would be so nervous. I would probably be like ‘how dare they’. It’s canon you’re touching.All I can say is that it’s been sitting there. They’ve been trying to make it forever. Sony was definitely going to make it. They were going to find somebody to do it. I kind of went, I have this idea, I have energy for it. I see this.I thought ‘I think I can do this’. And I love the Ghostbusters world. Again, there were too many things that were appealing about it. The idea of creating new technology, the idea of getting to up the special effects, and putting these funny people in this situation of peril."

Far better a fan with an idea of how to extend the universe he loves then someone needlessly remaking Ghostbusters 2 and adding precisely nothing, right?

He also addressed the criticisms of him not wanting Ivan Reitman on the set - one of the big take-aways from the Sony emails hack that anti-Ghostbusters crowd hold on to most vociferously. Again, he has sound reasoning:

"Let me say this. You find me any director, anywhere in the world, who says I want another director -who I idolise - standing over my shoulder looking at me.I love Ivan. He was involved every step of the way, he is the king, he is the man that did this. But I had people saying ‘how dare he try and get rid of him’. All I can say is: any filmmaker would make sure they had autonomy. Look at JJ! George Lucas was not on the set of Star Wars: The Force Awakens. You need to be able to do this stuff."

It's hard to really criticise him based on his reasoning. But it's inevitable that the same people will say the same things over and over again.

Are you excited to see the new Ghostbusters? Share your reactions below in the comments thread.