Alphagaia wrote:...he really wanted the evolution of ghost catching in there as he is a gear head...
Personally, I think he still could have easily done that. The science video they posted talked about the upgrades on the proton packs; cyclotron to synchrotron, etc. They could have explained those upgrades and advancements in the movie.
Kingpin wrote: But seeing as Ivan Reitman had his two lead actors from Stripes feature prominently in Ghostbusters, I think the point about reusing your lead actors isn't as convincing.
Fair that there was a history with Ivan, Harold, and Bill; but I see a big difference there. Harold was specifically brought in to help tweak Dan's original idea. He was part of the creative process from very early on - before production started and before Bill was approached. I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing anything about McCarthy or Wiig being part of the story team here.
Ghostbusters was an homage to the spook movies that came before, like among others
Hold that Ghost, The Ghost Breakers, and
Scared Stiff. While being an homage, it was also something new and thread new ground. As Alpha mentioned, a director going back to his wheelhouse isn't
necessarily a bad thing. Feig could have done that, done the spiritual comedy he wanted to do, make it an homage, and been fine. Instead, he's unnecessarily using the Ghostbusters name/logo for publicity. This isn't related to the Ghostbusters that came before. So why call it that?
(Again - this is personal preference. No hard feelings.)