Was Ghostbusters 2016 Really That Bad?

I'm not a fan of reboots or remakes. It doesn't seem like that long ago when some of these movies were originally made, and then they got the remake treatment. Movies like Footloose, Total Recall and the retooling of the Star Trek franchise come to mind. Count me as somebody who wasn't a fan of any of these. I prefer the originals. Yeah, I sound like one of those "get off my lawn" types.

The thing about franchises is they have fanbases. The way those franchises were done in the first place won those fans over. This created the expectations of those fans. So, if you get too cute with things, you risk the wrath of the fans. This seems to be happening a lot in the science fiction genre. Things like Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who and Ghostbusters are mired in heated discussions that at times evoke heated political and social debates.

When Ghostbusters 2016 was announced, I was sort of curious. When I heard it would be an all female cast and basically a reboot, I just casually said, "no thank you," and moved on with my life. Of course, the discussions continued between the Ghostbusters fan base and the new stars of this movie, and it got heated. People were calling each other names, and at times you started hearing about political affiliations and political correctness. 

With the announcement that there will be a sequel to Ghostbusters 2, I finally sat down to watched Ghostbusters 2016. I know I'm late to the party, but considering the debate that started raging again about the most recent movie, I wanted to enter the discussion with my own opinion. I had one thought on my mind as I clicked play. Was this movie really so bad? My answer after watching it is no. It was actually pretty good and stuck to the established Ghostbusters formula.

A thought crosses my mind. They did have some of the stars from the original movies in the most recent movie. However, they did not reprise their iconic roles. Therefore, you didn't get what might have made this a little bit more palatable to the die hard fans. You didn't get the stars of the original passing the baton over to the new stars. Or, maybe some of them could have shared the stage with them in some capacity. Maybe they could have done more movies together after this. I think it's fair to ask, had they done it that way, would this movie have performed better at the box office?

I'm not going to get into the comments that were thrown back and forth between the supporters and the haters. It's all subjective. Ghostbusters 2016 sticks to the formula. I mean, you can easily put the four original Ghostbusters in the roles of the four new characters. With just a little bit of tweaking of the dialogue, you would have your typical Ghostbusters movie. The story takes place in New York. The bad guy opens a portal from the netherworld to the real world to cause mayhem. The Ghostbusters have to figure out how to save the day.

I know one criticism I read was that all four women were trying to be the funny one. What movie were you watching? That's not what I saw at all. Kristen Wiig, for instance, wasn't trying to be the funny one. She did a great job in her role and pretty much played it straight. Melissa McCarthy was a little funny, and more there for the physical stuff as she is want to do. Leslie Jones really did a good job as the everyday woman who became a Ghostbuster. Attacking her for her skin color is petty and so unworthy of even me commenting on it any further. She deserved better than that.

If there is a weak link in the four, it's Kate McKinnon. I admit I'm not a fan of her on Saturday Night Live, nor the political bent in her humor on that show, but I can separate that from the movie. Saturday Night Live has nothing to do with it, even though one of the things I like about that show, Jones, is in this movie too. My problem with Kate is she could dial it down a little bit. A little Jim Carreyish, if you ask me. She does have a Geena Davis quality to her that I like, but she was here to be the funny one. I liked her toast to the other girls at the end of movie. Maybe her best scene.

Critics were merciless, leading movie supporters to bring up the possibility that the hate was based solely on the fact that the four stars were women. Is that the case? Maybe. I personally would have a problem if women were being cast just for the sake that we have to have women in these roles as some sort of message. However, it wasn't like there were just four women on the screen. They acted and they did their parts well enough.

As I watched this movie, I looked for any signs of some sort of agenda, as has been suggested by the film's detractors. I've seen some really ridiculous criticisms by people like Milo Yiannopoulos and others. They suggested it was about "women good, men bad." They claimed that all of the men were stupid and needed the women to save them and other such nonsense. I didn't notice that, subtly or more obviously. All I noticed were actors playing their roles. I didn't even think about who the actors were, because I was enjoying the story they were trying to tell. I know Hollywood loves messages, but not every movie is filled with some agenda driven message.

I would say this was the third best movie in the franchise, but that's not a knock against it. The first two movies were just that good, in my opinion. This may not be the best movie ever, but it held my attention from start to finish. That's all you can ask from any movie such as this one. If you're entertained and get a few laughs out of it, it did its job. I think the ladies were hoping it would do well enough that there would be sequels. While I still haven't seen the evidence that they actually lost more money than they spent making this movie, it wasn't a blockbuster. It did not warrant a sequel.

Then, we got the announcement of the new movie in the pipeline that will be a Part 3. Understandably, the makers of Ghostbusters 2016 weren't happy. They felt assaulted by the critics. Then, we started reading comments about how doing a sequel to the other Ghostbusters movies is like rewarding the fans for their behavior. That's the type of comment that we're seeing in our political discussions these days, and this is supposed to be entertainment. I wish PC, politics and all that stuff could be separated from entertainment, but that's not the world we live in now.

Illustrating that point, Jones made the comment that it was like a Donald Trump type of thing making a sequel to Part 2 instead of allowing the ladies to reprise their roles. I really wish she hadn't said that, but as I understand she was attacked verbally on social media when this movie was released. I get it. I wouldn't deny her her right to an opinion. Personally, as she played the niece of Ernie Hudson's character, I'd love to see her be the niece of Winston in the next movie. It probably won't happen.

I know people have strong opinions. I too want to see a continuation of the original two movies. I can't help but feel bad for the ladies though. The baton may be passed in the next movie, but perhaps the ladies should have been afforded that opportunity in the 2016 movie. And if they had, would the public outcry over their movie been as bad? Would they have made a little bit more money and be talking about their own sequel this time?

There's just one thing I would ask anybody who is objective. And maybe this goes for people who skipped out on Ghostbusters 2016 when it came out. Disassociate this movie from the first two movies and the controversy behind the scenes. Judge the ladies on their merits in this movie and what it has to offer. I think you'll find that while it may not be the best movie ever made, it wasn't so terrible either. It maybe was a victim of the times that we're living in these days. Not everything is some crusade. Sometimes a movie is just that, a movie,

Stanley Spadowski And His Mop

There was a funny movie staring Weird Al Yankovic called UHF. It also, starred, among others, Michael Richards of Seinfeld fame. Al plays a man given a UHF TV station to run, and Richards plays a janitor who was fired from a rival TV station just as Yankovic's character, George, pays the station a visit.

Now this janitor, Stanley Spadowski, loves being a janitor, and he loves the mop he was given as a child. It's a silly idea, but it makes Stanley an endearing character to me. The other station takes his mop away from him, just as George is leaving. George takes pity of Stanley and hires him as his janitor.

Well, Stanley is as happy as can be to be a janitor again and get a new mop. His love of his job reminds me of the scene in Crazy People where all of the people get new cars for their work on the commercials. But one guy is sad, because he wanted an old beat up Saab. When an old flatbed shows up with that car on the back, he is just as happy as can be. For some reason, he loves Saabs.

Anyway, George's TV station is going under, so he decides to let Stanley host a show. Why not? It's over anyway. Well, the kids love Stanley, and he is the star of Stanley Spadowski's Clubhouse. He gives a great speech about how life is like a mop.

What I liked was when George comes back to the studio, he tells Stanley that he can be the new host of the show. You'd think George would be thrilled, but he wants one more thing. He wants to still be the janitor of the station. It's supposed to be funny, but there's a message here too.

George has found the thing in life that makes him happy. It gives his life meaning. He loves to clean and mop, and the title of janitor is good enough for him. It's nice when you can find the thing in life that gives you life purpose, whatever it is.

By the way, UHF is an underrated movie with some good laughs in it. Sure, it's off the wall. Weird Al is the star, so what do you expect? The critics weren't in love with it, but the best critic of what is good and bad is the viewer themselves.

Life Is A Mop Speech: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHe6ar-X2cQ

Remembering William Cooper, 18 years later

Remember, remember the 5th of November...

It was about 11:30pm at night on this date back in 2001.  American Patriot William Cooper was running into his house after he realized he was being ambushed by so called police officers.  People mistakenly say he died on November 5th.  This is not true.  He actually died the next morning.  Rather than apprehend the man, take him to the hospital and let the legal system do its job, they watched him die.  It is my opinion that they were sent to execute the man.

Bill was certainly a thorn in the side of the system and the government.  He knew how things really worked.  He knew that what we the people were being told our whole lives was a lie.  Rather than take that realization with him and go about his business, he spent his life trying to educate those who would listen.  It wasn't a pretty truth, but sometimes the truth isn't pretty.  He exposed how politics really works, the IRS, the truth about 9/11 (before it happened) and so on.  He spent hours on air the day of 9/11.  He knew the world was forever changing that day, just as they planned.

There is so much more that can be said about him, but it won't fit in this article.  Yes, he was in the UFO community in the 1980's, following one lead after another.  He eventually exposed the lies within the UFO community and spent the last ten years of his life devoted to exposing truths we could see and discover for ourselves with research.  He was not a perfect man.  He was flawed.  Though some might be temped to call him the father of the truth movement, Bill bristled at the idea.  "Do not make me your leader, " he would say, "for I am a man, and I will surely fail you."

Bill was at his best when he was educating people.  Though he might get upset, he was usually very composed.  He wanted people to take his information, confirm it with their own research and realize that he was only telling them the upleasnt truth,  When he died, it left a big void in this movement.  There's no doubt that if Bill were here today, he'd still be looking for answers, wherever they led him.  If it hurt the left or the right, he wouldn't care as long as it was true.  I believe he wouldn't be holding up certain political leaders as people truly wanting to fight for the American people.  This seems to be the MO of some in the truth movement since the 2016 elections.

In Cooper, he learned the same lesson we have been taught for years.  No matter how big you are, you can be taken down by the powers that be.  Your fame or popularity is not a shield.  Cooper saw times getting even tougher for those looking for the truth.  In his time, he created a radio station and a newspaper to get the word out.  It's likely that he'd have much to say about what has come to pass in the age of the internet and social media.  Even now, people like Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden are being silenced.  There's no doubt that Bill would warn us that things will only get worse if we don't stand up for our God given rights.

Find out more about Bil Cooper by looking for the following:
Behold A Pale Horse
Mystery Babylon
The Porterville Presentation
The Hour Of The Time Radio Show Archives