I made my low opinion of Ghostbusters plain last year. I swore I wouldn't do another post about it.
The thing is that Plinkett finally got around to plucking this one apart. So Here is Plinkett along with some older stuff of mine.
Ten years ago there was a female comedian that was all the rage. A fat Korean lesbian named Margret Cho. Her "flied lice" shtick was declared by the forces of SJW GoodThink to be the smartest, funniest, most hip comic thing there had ever been (the same people are doing the same thing with Amy Schumer now).
There is an entire cottage industry of not-funny comics. These are comics -- often female -- who are simply not funny at all, but who subsist on "clapper" material, material which is not actually funny but the sentiment of which is approved by the left-wing audience and thus garners appreciative, You Tell 'Em Girlfriend claps.
It's pretty easy to get claps. It's hard to get actual laughs. So some not-funny comics just specialize in the former.
The Clapper Hall of Fame contains such luminaries as Judy Gold, Jeneane Garafalo, and of course the reigning Queen of Courtesy Claps, Margaret Cho.
The amateur leftist webzine Slate predictably adores Cho, and insists she is hysterically funny despite all available evidence to the contrary.(*link provided was broken)
The leftist douchebag writing the article seems to hint that in fact Margarat Cho is not-funny with this near-admission:
The funniest part of a Cho gag is neither the setup nor the punch line, but that in-between moment when the audience is left in suspension, wondering what kind of character will emerge to take over her voice and body.
Ah. So the best part of a Margaret Cho show isn't when she's actually talking or telling jokes. It's when she's got her mouth shut, and you're filled with the tantalizing hope that This joke might actually turn out to be funny.
Then she tells the joke, and the frisson of comedic promise is dashed, dashed and shattered like a ceramic bong dropping to the floor out of Andy Dick's drunkenly-gesticulating hands.
Talk about damning with faint praise. The best part of 95% of movies is the opening credits, when you're filled with anticipation that this might actually be an enjoyable, smartly-made movie. And then the actual movie begins, ruining everything.
Which brings us to Ghostbusters (2016) The Estrogening. The unwanted golf clap humor remake of the classic comedy from the 1980s.
It was always going to be weak compared to the original. The performers simply aren't as strong as the ones that were in the original film. This flick started life as a feminist vanity project and at this point it's becoming obvious that it can only survive as a feminist vanity project...for everyone!
Feminist Narrative Ghostbusters appears to be at best a very weak comedy. I am only judging this by trailers that didn't make me laugh and the opinions of critics who put their craft ahead of their politics.
However there is never a shortage of critics that will do just the opposite of that. Enter Stephanie Zacharek, former critic for the Village Voice, who is now spewing Hivemind entertainment political conformity at Time. She was nominated for a Pulitzer for this because the Pulitzers are utter crap.
I knew without question that when the obvious truth of this remake's inferiority to the original became too glaringly obvious to ignore. The SJW Hivemind would decree that the original wasn't all that and a bag of chips neither, so there. Nyah-nyah-nyah!
Stephanie Zacharek at Time has now been summoned by the forces of revisionist history to disparage a masterpiece in order to try and make a half assed piece of feminist doodling on film look less abysmal.
I was unaware of the existence of this Time critic...
...Blissfully unaware I should say. She appears to be both profoundly silly and shockingly lazy. As for her taste, she clearly and obviously has none. But I shall let her damn herself with her own words. you be the judge:
The Internet is a world of wonders for many reasons, not least for its astonishing ability to rewrite reality. For example, everyone loves the original Ghostbusters, made by Ivan Reitman in 1984.
Well that was because it was hilarious comedy that made us laugh, you know like great comedies are supposed to. But then we are human beings and not SJW Femputers so these things appeal to us.
In fact, this hallowed classic is so adored by every breathing human on the planet that Paul Feig’s new version—with Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones wearing the slime-resistant boots originally filled by Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson—is short of sacrilege. It doesn’t even matter whether the reboot works or doesn’t, for any of the millions who will most likely see it—there’s just no other argument to be made.
No one wants to see it because it doesn't look funny. You put two or three of the best jokes in the trailers to lure the audience in. The trailers didn't make me laugh once. I didn't even crack a smile. On the basis of these trailers this film is up there with Paul Blart Mall Cop 2.
But what if you didn’t like the original Ghostbusters?
Then you don't like the sound of laughter. Which is normal for filthy socialists I will grant.
Or thought it was perfectly fine when you first saw it but haven’t been stroking its memory like a stuffed bunnykins ever since?
I didn't think it was fine. I thought it was one of the funniest movies I'd ever seen in my life. But then I like joking and laughter and other odd things like that.
If you’ve paid any attention at all to the Ghostbusters-remake flap that’s been unfolding on the web for nearly two years now—two years!—you’ve probably been watching with half as much brain energy as you spend gauging the ratio of milk to cereal you pour into the bowl each morning.
I think she's trying to tell a joke now. But I can't say for certain. It's probably as close as she can get.
Regardless, this has not been going on for two years. There was some grumbling from long time fans and few eyebrows were raised when the project was announced but most people didn't care about it or even knew it existed until the trailer was dropped on an unsuspecting world like a cow pie from the top of the Sedgewick Hotel (which is a Ghostbusters joke that I'm certain Stephanie wouldn't get it.)
But the loudest people on the web are never the most sensible, and it’s always the loudest that skew reality. If you dislike the original Ghostbusters—or even if you just think it’s merely OK—for the sake of mankind, it’s time to break your silence.
You aren't being publicly obnoxious enough to be a proper SJW. You are ordered by an almost but not quite journalist to work on that.
I’m more of a Ghostbusters II person myself.
Ha! Ha! Ha! (*gasp...wheez...gasp*) Ha! Ha! Ha!
How on Earth are you permitted to be a film critic? Okay hating Ghostbusters is fine. Maybe Bill Murray turns you off because he reminds you of the guy you used to sleep with in college but wouldn't say in public that you were his girlfriend (because you weren't), I get it. But Ghostbusters II is a perfect example of "how not to make a sequel". There was no attempt whatsoever to expand on the original story or characters. they just repeated what they had done before, which is bluntly a tasteless money grabbing ripoff.
How did you get a job at Time? I mean seriously lady, whose balls did you fondle? Because you did not land this gig on the basis of your incisive viewpoint.
The 1989 sequel dispenses with all the dumb logic of the first and, in its unapologetic wooliness, makes greater comic sense than its predecessor:
I feel like I am now kicking the stupidest puppy I've ever met in my life. This woman is fundamentally incapable of knowing good from shit if she honestly thinks Ghostbusters II is one of those movies that transcends the original. They dispensed "with all the dumb logic" to streamline the sausage making needed to grind out sequel shlock and a competent critic would recognize this.
Just for the record Lost and Silly One, Ghostbusters II is inferior because it is a shot for shot remake of the original. Every scene in the sequel has an analog from the original. How someone who is paid to have useful opinions about film fails to notice this is a damning indictment of the failure of journalism in the 21st century in general and Time in particular.
Using Max von Sydow’s voice for a crabby ghost version of Vlad the Impaler was a mini stroke of genius.
There was nothing ingenious about it. Norbert Grupe aside from being a hateful human being couldn't speak English all that well. Vigo had to be ADR'd.
I’ve been wondering just how large this silent group really is, because I never liked Reitman’s Ghostbusters, though I did enjoy the reboot.
Go read her review of the Ghostbusters the Estrogening. It reads like a review by someone who was paid to like something they don't really believe in. Now I'm certain she wasn't paid in money for this service. I honestly feel her compensation comes from having stated what the GoodThink NewSpeak to proles will now be. Giving a good review to a shitty movie gave her the reward of status among the other SWPLs.
In the original, Bill Murray’s semi-improvisational line slinging is loose and free and wonderful, and the deadpan skepticism of his face—generally wearing an expression that says, “I can’t believe I’m starring in a movie about blasting ghosts to smithereens, but OK”—is enough to keep you watching even after boredom sets in. But the movie’s pacing isn’t nearly as brisk as it could be, and the lines of dialogue Ghostbusters heads love and quote most—“He slimed me”—sound like a parody of dumb comedy writing, the sort usually accompanied by an aggressively fake laugh track. By the end, the picture’s spirit is gloomy and ill-humored, as if it had tried hard to be a dark comedy and simply failed, leaving a vaguely sour taste in its wake.
The slower pacing that she seems to find objectionable is drastically superior to the drag race for the closing credits that goes on today. Ghostbusters was never about the plot. It was about three performances by three comedic actors who were talented, seasoned and at the absolute top of their game.
But if Ghostbusters I truly is your childhood—if, in fact, you can’t remember anything else about your childhood beyond Ghostbusters I—then by all means, own it. And know that no matter what, Reddit will always be there for you.
Embrace your ignorance you Trump voting rubes! You'll never be important like me, a critic for an obsolete medium.
Nearly everyone has affection for a film he or she saw in childhood—movies are designed to work on us that way. But theGhostbusters originalists—who are still raging, now that the first reviews of Feig’s movie have suggested that it’s not the disaster they’d hoped it would be—
I've gone into detail elsewhere about how modern critics reliably whore themselves out to support Feminist Narrative movies.
are a peculiar and fascinating phenomenon, offering a warped snapshot of the power movies can have over us, even in a time when movies are often seen as the once-mighty giant that has (almost) been slain by TV. These guys—and face it, we know that most of them are guys—
There we are! She dropped the mask. Guys are the real problem with Ghostbusters the Estrogening. Men should be required to watch more women's basketball because it has really good fundamentals.
don’t just love a movie that conjures happy memories of childhood. They feel an overwhelming need to impose their fixation on the rest of us. They’re not saying culture doesn’t matter, but they are saying, Only my culture matters. They’re mounting a dictatorship of nostalgia.
Like you fucking aren't!?!?!
What obviously hasn’t occurred to them is that a 2016 Ghostbusters may very well be, sometime around 2046, the currency of someone else’s cherished childhood memories.
Doubtful unless they were fairly miserable children.
Their own not-yet-born kids, their own nieces and nephews, the kids of their best friends, will quite possibly grow up to be traitors to the Ghostbusters originalists’ cherished ideals:
Cherished ideal? Seriously? You are so far gone in the worship of your SJW good think that you honestly believe something that makes people laugh (which feminist Ghostbusters does not) is a cherished ideal, instead of entertainment?
For reasons of their own, incomprehensible to the older dudes around them, they will like the remake better. There are plenty of people who adore Brian De Palma’s Scarface without even knowing, or caring, that it’s a reimagining of a 1932 Howard Hawks’ movie.
The Ghostbusters mishigas of the past 21 months has opened up one mammoth question with a still-unfolding set of answers: How can movies mean so much to us?
They don't. Not in this day and age.
Somehow this art form, no matter how long we’ve been predicting its demise, is unkillable. But when a group of people love one movie so much that it turns them into a raging mob of assholes, their tyranny does more to obscure than illuminate the qualities of the movie in question. Thank heavens the Ghostbusters remake came together, against their will and their wishes.
It came together because Amy Pascal at Sony Pictures was determined to ramrod SJW Feminist hot garbage products through the pipeline rather than actually make money for her company.
If the movies have taught us anything, it’s that trying to script the nostalgia of the future is a losing battle.
Stephanie...Dear Stephanie, nobody wants to see Feminist Ghostbusters for the same fucking reason that nobody wants to see Feminist Monty Python's the Life of Brian. It's going to be crap compared to the original because there is no way it can't be!
The talent that made it just can't compete with the original and in your deepest heart you know it.
UPDATE: Opening day and the RT score is down to 73% positive critical rating; 49% positive audience rating.
I don't think the theater ushers are going to be bringing out the nightsticks to beat back the enraged crowds who couldn't score tickets.