Yesterday, we reported that Dan Aykroyd was taking shots at Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters. In an interview, Aykroyd claimed that the movie was too expensive, and that the high cost was due in part to reshoots costing $30-40 million (a dubious claim that was refuted by the studio, which said reshoots cost closer to $3-4 million). I noted that it seemed like a bit of sour grapes since the movie that Sony made was a full-on reboot rather than the one Aykroyd had pushed for years, a soft reboot that would have passed the torch to a younger group of ghostbusters.
Again, rather than just letting this go (the movie came out almost a year ago), Aykroyd is continuing to hammer the reboot. He took to Facebook yesterday to say the following:
Except the problem with Ghostbusters isn’t that the “originators” aren’t in it enough. If anything, the film goes out of its way so that Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, and Sigourney Weaver can all have cameos. Perhaps Aykroyd felt that they should have had full-on roles, but one of the major hurdles in getting a Ghostbusters 3 is that Murray was clearly ambivalent about returning to play Venkman.
On the one hand, I understand where Aykroyd is coming from—Ghostbusters is his baby. That being said, it’s ultimately a Sony property, and they made a reasonable play by hiring a director with multiple hits, a top-notch cast, and assuming that audiences wanted a lot of VFX. It may have cost too much money, but I don’t think the “passing of the torch” movie that Aykroyd wanted would have guaranteed a sequel if the film still had a summer-blockbuster-sized budget.
While it’s easy now to do a postmortem on Ghostbusters, I don’t think Aykroyd’s criticisms are really getting to the heart of why the movie didn’t blow up the box office. While it may be nice to think that getting the old gang back together to do a sequel would automatically yield a hit movie, I would put my money on younger talent rather than hoping that the old crew could rekindle the magic of a classic.