- Addressing all of your Ghostbusters reboot arguments…
- They should have just made Ghostbusters 3, but now we get this crap!
- I hate it because I loved the original and this is ruining everything!
- They just replaced the men with women! I hate that because…
- But it hates men! The only guy in it is an idiot!
- I’m going to pretend I hate it for other reasons … racism
Addressing all of your Ghostbusters reboot arguments…
At least Patton Oswalt agrees with me. I always want to be on the side that Patton Oswalt agrees with. Unfortunately, even Patton’s very mild tweets were answered by numerous nasty replies making off-color jokes about his late wife, who he lost just last month.
And this is after about a year of the stars themselves fielding a rather unreasonable amount of angry comments and tweets. Leslie Jones had to take a serious break from and even considered getting herself off it altogether.
You know, I used to say that I thought social media was bad for the fans. I don’t to see a star I admired rant themselves into a corner with no filter, diminishing my illusion that they are perfectly nice people, as some have done. But it can also be bad for the stars, giving the public easy access to them, making them feel terrible about themselves with a few callous sentences.
You get notified every time someone puts that @ in front of your handle. My inbox is pretty light, just friends being silly and sweet, but I’ve had the occasional hateful tweet and it can be a day-ruiner. I couldn’t imagine being famous on Jones’ level and waking up to an inbox full of hate. Paul Feig actually spent several rants answering back, ending with this…
Ever since, everyone in the cast and crew has been stepping back, trying not to address the backlash, trying to promote their film and do the job they were contracted to do.
But every time a video related to the new film gets put up, it has such a massive amount of diss and outraged comments that you would think it was a snuff film.
There are four trailers now and various tie-in videos on , all of which have more diss than s (even the freaking adorable and hilarious Chris Hemsworth vignette).
Sony actually disabled s and comments on their Google Science Fair promos using the Ghostbusters 2016 cast. And that made me sad. What a neat tie-in, such a nice and natural fit, considering the characters these women play are scientists and nerds. What a nice thing for everyone!
But this is the internet and no one is allowed to have nice things.
They should have just made Ghostbusters 3, but now we get this crap!
Maybe that’s your beef, angry downvoter! You loved Ghostbusters and you lo… well, you also enjoyed Ghostbusters 2 and you’re annoyed you never got that third. Well, guess whose fault that isn’t?
This movie is in no way responsible for the absence of Ghostbusters 3. In a way, no one is to blame for it. You could blame Bill Murray for not wanting to revisit the role, as he was the major hold-out.
But maybe he felt he had gotten all the comedic mileage he could from it and he didn’t think Peter Venkman had anything new to say. You could blame Dan Aykroyd for writing a script that literally had an alternate hell dimension called… Manhellton.
But maybe Aykroyd was also running to dry well. I mean, as of the second film, you’ve got the Statue of Liberty destroying demonic forces with love energy.
I’m not saying the film didn’t have its moments, but where do you really go from there? You could also blame Harold Ramis for not being immortal. But you shouldn’t — even if you want to (you are sorely missed, you sly comic genius!).
Did you really want it without Harold? Did you really want it if it didn’t touch the first or the second in quality? I’ve heard of the rejected scripts. They didn’t get Murray on board and, chances are, you might have felt the same way about them if they made it to theaters.
I hate it because I loved the original and this is ruining everything!
I am saying this as a Ghostbusters fan. This version does not ruin the original in any way. If it’s good, then it brought something interesting to the format. If it’s bad, then you are validated. But neither of those outcomes diminishes Ghostbusters 1 or 2.
I truly want you to understand that this movie and the people behind it are not hunting down and destroying all copies of the originals. And maybe I’m an optimist, but I don’t think they are revisiting this set-up in an effort to drop a deuce all over it.
When they made Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, people were very upset that anyone would touch something that had already been done to absolute perfection with Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Here’s the thing, though: You can whichever version you want, but the new one deserved to exist.
Maybe the music wasn’t as sentimental and sweet. Maybe Johnny Depp did make a frightening and off-putting Wonka. But the bad children they presented were perfect for our time, just as the bad children Roald Dahl presented were perfect for his time (also, Dahl’s relatives preferred the Burton version).
Even if this doesn’t end up as good as the originals, it could have something valuable to say about our time and our issues.
They just replaced the men with women! I hate that because…
You know, I’m just going to pretend that you are not some kind of woman-hater and you aren’t just afraid of girl cooties getting all over your boy stuff.
Some of you might even be women who are just not fans of the ladies in the cast. But I truly hope your problem is not just that the cast are ladies.
And I would love to hear your pitch if you have an alternate foursome that you think could do better. That being said, the cast has filmed, so let’s move on…
As I said above, they would not have made the movie if they didn’t feel they had something new to do with the format. And replacing the men with women is not some kind of S.J.W./P.C./man-hating B.S. It is genuinely applying an old formula to a new situation.
At its heart, Ghostbusters is an underdog story. Four underdog geeks save the world from a paranormal threat. But geeks are not the underdog anymore. With the technology we have now, the geeks who have created it have gained a level of respect they never enjoyed before. Once, their interests were considered fringe, now genre shows are appointment TV. Geeks are at the top of the food chain.
But you know who is at the bottom of the food chain? Girl geeks, girls who might not have the perfect body, who might be more into science or sci-fi than dating, might rush to the newest superhero movie over the newest rom-com.
They want to feel that’s okay, their interests and their focus might have value.
How many heroines do girl geeks have to look up to? How many that don’t have a makeover montage at some point in the film? Or how many that are able to just do something awesome and not have to do it in skintight pleather and six-inch heels or otherwise scant clothing? Let’s just say it’s rare.
Authors note: It seems some people think it’s unfair that I said girl geeks are at the bottom of the food chain in the geek community. I wasn’t actually talking about the community, though. I was talking about what girl geeks have to work with in the role model department.
Let me be clearer: I’m not saying that boy geeks exclude girls from their ranks, but that girl geeks have very few role models without the glamour factor. Even the Action Girls we are getting lately are all commercially attractive enough to be in… well, commercials. And I am not complaining, exactly.
I am glad to have Rey and Katniss as characters a little girl could reasonably cosplay without a skintight bodysuit.
But Hollywood will always favor the pretty, men or women, in action roles. In comedies, it should be fair game for us regular, not so symmetrical or perfectly fit people. The narrative of “ordinary schlubs save the world” is almost always one featuring men.
If there is a woman in the vicinity, she is commercially attractive. If she is not commercially attractive, she removes her glasses/orthopedic shoes/bad hairstyle and is revealed to be commercially attractive. Ordinary-looking men are allowed to exist and do things save cities or worlds.
Ordinary-looking women rarely get a shot at it. And the GB reboot cast are all lovely women. I’m not even trying to say the actresses they chose aren’t attractive. It’s just that they aren’t on the “maybe it’s Maybelline” shortlist.
They are everywomen, easy to relate to, which is why they are in comedy and not giving us duck-lips on the cover of Vogue. And I look forward to seeing them do things save cities or worlds.
Maybe the movie will be a terrible flop with bad CGI and no good jokes and poor timing, but I wouldn’t blame the casting of these women for that. They in no way have earned the ill will being tossed at them.
But it hates men! The only guy in it is an idiot!
The idea that extremely good looking people (anatomically blessed blondes, for instance) sometimes get jobs they are not qualified for, possibly how desirable they are, was not invented by this movie. It’s been done with men and with women.
My personal favorite is still Jon Hamm guesting on 30 Rock as a man so good looking that he thinks he’s amazing at everything because people have always been too fascinated by his matinee idol smile to tell him his tennis, cooking, drawing, and even doctoring are all horrible and even dangerous.
The brainless beauty has many sub-tropes. For every male version you could come up with, I can give you ten ditzy lady secretaries, and that’s from the 1940s alone. What’s more, if done well, I love a dumb blonde (or brunette, red-head, bald-head, what-have-you).
Almost every quotable line in Glee (back when Glee was quotable) came from Britney, Andy pretty much always stole the show on Parks and Rec, Christina Applegate played the hell Kelly Bundy on Married With Children, and most of the lines I remember from Boy Meets World were Eric’s.
There’s something about a genuinely dumb, but genuinely sincere character that makes them endearing and lovable, which brings me to Kevin…
Call me crazy, but this was the first promo that got me a little excited about the movie. The rest of the cast all talk about how hilarious Chris Hemsworth is and I think he will be. The timing looks spot on.
From what I see, his character is sort of an amalgam of Louis and Janine, not some calculated effort to present men as stupid.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that, if this movie sucks, Kevin will be a bright, quotable, and very lovable spot.
I’m going to pretend I hate it for other reasons … racism
Yeah! Why is the black woman a transit worker when everyone else is a scientist? Well, I’ll tell you. Or Paul Feig and Leslie Jones will.
See, the character was written for Melissa McCarthy… until Feig realized he’d already had her play that part twice and he needed to find someone else who could pull off brash and make it work. He found Leslie Jones. And Leslie Jones was happy to be found. And she doesn’t much appreciate people being outraged on her behalf and judging her role before they’ve seen the movie.
«,»author»:»April Walsh»,»date_published»:»2016-07-27T08:19:23.549Z»,»lead_image_url»:»https://miro.medium.com/max/768/1*7ZPbph-eyal28jcRT14w.jpeg»,»dek»:null,»next_page_url»:null,»url»:»https://medium.com/legendary-women/addressing-all-of-your-ghostbusters-reboot-arguments-876d0e6315c0″,»domain»:»medium.com»,»excerpt»:»Well, the third trailer is up and â what do you know? â more diss than s and a ton of angry, dismissive, nasty comments. Darn itâ¦»,»word_count»:1917,»direction»:»ltr»,»total_pages»:1,»rendered_pages»:1}