This article is a part of FoulENT's 30 Days of Stuff! Click here to read all 30 Days entries and be sure to come back every day in May for new stuff just like this!
As of late, it's been impossible to separate the poor feedback of the Ghostbusters reboot trailers and it's countless accusations of sexism. The first official Ghostbusters reboot trailer is now the most disliked movie trailer in YouTube's history, with a similar like-to-dislike ratio emerging for the second. Director Paul Feig has fanned the flame of controversy by calling out the fans as a bunch of sexist jerks who hate everything, whilst a number of so-called news sites have reported this apparent misogyny as fact. And finally, just this week, Angry Video Game Nerd himself, James Rolfe, came under serious fire for refusing to watch the new movie. It seems, then, that an abhorrent subculture of misogyny is rampant in the geek world.
But is this actually the case? Or is there far more at play here than is being reported?
As of late, it's been impossible to separate the poor feedback of the Ghostbusters reboot trailers and it's countless accusations of sexism. The first official Ghostbusters reboot trailer is now the most disliked movie trailer in YouTube's history, with a similar like-to-dislike ratio emerging for the second. Director Paul Feig has fanned the flame of controversy by calling out the fans as a bunch of sexist jerks who hate everything, whilst a number of so-called news sites have reported this apparent misogyny as fact. And finally, just this week, Angry Video Game Nerd himself, James Rolfe, came under serious fire for refusing to watch the new movie. It seems, then, that an abhorrent subculture of misogyny is rampant in the geek world.
But is this actually the case? Or is there far more at play here than is being reported?
I shouldn't have to tell you, but apparently I do. It's time to cut through the shit surrounding this controversial movie. Let's bust it wide open, 'cause bustin' makes me feel good.
Let's stick a big ol' DISCLAIMER right at the top here. For the most part, I will be presenting my OWN VIEWS on this controversy. I am in no way claiming that I am in any position to tell you what is right and wrong. I will, however, be presenting evidence that I BELIEVE SUPPORTS an argument that members of the press and the creative team behind the Ghostbusters reboot have a hidden agenda and are using the veil of sexism to defend the poor quality of the trailers and potentially the final product. But bear in mind, I CAN'T REPORT ANYTHING AS FACT. I can only show you evidence and HYPOTHESIZE on it. I DO NOT CLAIM to be reporting ANYTHING as an UNDENIABLE REPORT OF FACTS... unlike some people.
Which leads me neatly into my first point:
Which leads me neatly into my first point:
The Press Damage Control Is Utter Bullshit
When I discuss things in my blogs, for the most part, I am presenting my own views. When I'm talking about comics history, sure that's usually fact, 'cause that's actual published stories that you can purchase. They exist. But when I'm telling you about stuff that annoys me, I'm normally presenting an opinion. It's an opinion that is backed up by facts, but it's just that: An opinion. A take on certain events from my own mind. I'm not someone to form an opinion of something without assessing a situation first, and when I write about it, I don't try and present my informed opinion as a direct representation of fact.
Unlike the majority of the online press, apparently.
Unlike the majority of the online press, apparently.
Image Credit: denofgeek.com
Just take a look at this, or this, even this, the list goes fucking on. By the way, notice the URL of this one by The Atlantic, where the blatant outcry of sexism got edited out of the article title.
Holy fucking shit, these are NEWS SITES. Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Business Insider, Jesus Christ, these people are supposed to be revered news sources! And they're reporting that this sexism is complete, undeniable fact! That's not only incredibly bad journalism, it crushes the sites integrities. This is not a report of fact, this is spin. At least The Guardian attribute the sexist argument directly to Paul Feig rather than present it as fact. And once you read that article, you can see the ripples of repeated buzzwords across the press.
Now, I'm not one to say that spin doesn't exist in the modern press, I'm not totally naive. This is why I always research things for myself in order to make my own opinions. At its core, journalism is going to have some degree of personal spin, because stuff like this can't be written as plain fact by robots, because that shit doesn't sell. To paraphrase director Max Landis, people crave drama and stories and we consistently seek out distraction and entertainment. And right now, it seems that the story that is selling surrounding the Ghostbusters reboot is that the hate surrounding it stems from sexist ideals and that supporting the movie is supporting a progressive feminist ideal. Which is, at it's core, inherently spun in favour of Feig and the girl-power movement that has spun out of the project.
Holy fucking shit, these are NEWS SITES. Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Business Insider, Jesus Christ, these people are supposed to be revered news sources! And they're reporting that this sexism is complete, undeniable fact! That's not only incredibly bad journalism, it crushes the sites integrities. This is not a report of fact, this is spin. At least The Guardian attribute the sexist argument directly to Paul Feig rather than present it as fact. And once you read that article, you can see the ripples of repeated buzzwords across the press.
Now, I'm not one to say that spin doesn't exist in the modern press, I'm not totally naive. This is why I always research things for myself in order to make my own opinions. At its core, journalism is going to have some degree of personal spin, because stuff like this can't be written as plain fact by robots, because that shit doesn't sell. To paraphrase director Max Landis, people crave drama and stories and we consistently seek out distraction and entertainment. And right now, it seems that the story that is selling surrounding the Ghostbusters reboot is that the hate surrounding it stems from sexist ideals and that supporting the movie is supporting a progressive feminist ideal. Which is, at it's core, inherently spun in favour of Feig and the girl-power movement that has spun out of the project.
Criticism is NOT Sexism
Okay, buckle up, buckaroos, I'm about to present my own opinion of the Ghostbusters reboot:
From what I have seen of this movie, I don't think I will like it. I probably won't pay to see it in theatres, but I might check it out on home release when someone else can buy the DVD so I don't have to pay for something I won't enjoy. Let me be clear, I have paid to see other works from the people involved in these movies. I have not found Melissa McCarthy funny in the movies I have seen her in (The Heat, Identity Thief and TV show Mike And Molly), I didn't enjoy Feig's Bridesmaids, I don't find most of the SNL cast funny outside of The Lonely Island and I am ambivalent towards Kristen Wiig. Speaking directly about the trailer, the jokes didn't land with me and I personally hate gross-out humour, so the ghost vomit gag didn't sit well with me. Partly because I think it's cheap writing and partly because I just don't like gross things. Slapstick is a thin line with me and I don't think it is done as well here as it has been by other movies and TV shows, like Kingsman or Bottom. The effects don't look half-bad, they're colourful for sure, but it screams of a Nickleodeon kids movie to me, which I'm not a fan of. And finally, it's a reboot, which I'm mostly divided on, but I feel like the opportunity to tie this movie into the narrative of the previous two was totally squandered. There is no part of this movie that resonates with me other than the recognisable brand of Ghostbusters, which is a brand that has movies I have enjoyed in the past. The trailers are relying on the strength of the property to draw in people like me, but based on the comedic style of it's cast, the film-making chops of Feig and his previous movies, the writing that has been demonstrated in trailers and the overall pitch of the movie thus far, I don't think this movie is something I will enjoy.
Can I say that it definitely sucks? No. No, I can't. I haven't seen it. It might surprise everyone and be a flawless movie. We live in a world of infinite possibilities. Mad Max: Fury Road was supposedly going to suck, but that became a fan and critic favourite and it's one of my favourite movies of all time now. Shit, I passed on Spy, which is directed by Feig and stars McCarthy because I disliked both of their previous works. Yet, critics and audiences seemed to love it. I still don't know if it's any good, because I have no desire to watch it. And that's the feeling I have toward Ghostbusters. I have no desire to watch it because the talent involved and content released so far hasn't spurred me into being interested. It's not like my mind was made up before the trailer. I had apprehensions, yes, but I had apprehensions about The Force Awakens, and I love Star Wars from the very core of my being. But after consideration from all sources, Ghostbusters isn't something I will be watching when it releases later this year.
From what I have seen of this movie, I don't think I will like it. I probably won't pay to see it in theatres, but I might check it out on home release when someone else can buy the DVD so I don't have to pay for something I won't enjoy. Let me be clear, I have paid to see other works from the people involved in these movies. I have not found Melissa McCarthy funny in the movies I have seen her in (The Heat, Identity Thief and TV show Mike And Molly), I didn't enjoy Feig's Bridesmaids, I don't find most of the SNL cast funny outside of The Lonely Island and I am ambivalent towards Kristen Wiig. Speaking directly about the trailer, the jokes didn't land with me and I personally hate gross-out humour, so the ghost vomit gag didn't sit well with me. Partly because I think it's cheap writing and partly because I just don't like gross things. Slapstick is a thin line with me and I don't think it is done as well here as it has been by other movies and TV shows, like Kingsman or Bottom. The effects don't look half-bad, they're colourful for sure, but it screams of a Nickleodeon kids movie to me, which I'm not a fan of. And finally, it's a reboot, which I'm mostly divided on, but I feel like the opportunity to tie this movie into the narrative of the previous two was totally squandered. There is no part of this movie that resonates with me other than the recognisable brand of Ghostbusters, which is a brand that has movies I have enjoyed in the past. The trailers are relying on the strength of the property to draw in people like me, but based on the comedic style of it's cast, the film-making chops of Feig and his previous movies, the writing that has been demonstrated in trailers and the overall pitch of the movie thus far, I don't think this movie is something I will enjoy.
Can I say that it definitely sucks? No. No, I can't. I haven't seen it. It might surprise everyone and be a flawless movie. We live in a world of infinite possibilities. Mad Max: Fury Road was supposedly going to suck, but that became a fan and critic favourite and it's one of my favourite movies of all time now. Shit, I passed on Spy, which is directed by Feig and stars McCarthy because I disliked both of their previous works. Yet, critics and audiences seemed to love it. I still don't know if it's any good, because I have no desire to watch it. And that's the feeling I have toward Ghostbusters. I have no desire to watch it because the talent involved and content released so far hasn't spurred me into being interested. It's not like my mind was made up before the trailer. I had apprehensions, yes, but I had apprehensions about The Force Awakens, and I love Star Wars from the very core of my being. But after consideration from all sources, Ghostbusters isn't something I will be watching when it releases later this year.
Image Credit: denofgeek.com
Now. I want you to read back over that explanation and tell me what part of that was sexist. Because if you believe the spin of the press right now, I am a misogynist for not wanting to see it. Based purely on my decision to not watch Ghostbusters, I apparently hate women and I hate Ghostbusters because of women and I'm an oppressive CIS male who wants to impose the patriarchy.
BULLSHIT.
My arguments for not supporting the movie are exactly the ones above. There is no hidden meaning or agenda behind them. And yes, I can't say for sure that everyone who is hating on the movie online come from such a considered potion as me. People will hate things just to hate them. And yes, some people are sexist. I don't deny that there are awful, awful people out there who have targeted Ghostbusters given it's now prominent role in the press.
HOWEVER, to imply that the main criticism of Ghostbusters is a gender issue is fucking moronic. It dismisses all of the other reasons that people don't like the look of this movie. There are a multitude of concerns for this movie. Here are just a few of them:
I could go on, I really could, but we would be here all day. Point is, there are a multitude of factors that inform someone's decision about a movie. And that is ABSOLUTELY OKAY.
BULLSHIT.
My arguments for not supporting the movie are exactly the ones above. There is no hidden meaning or agenda behind them. And yes, I can't say for sure that everyone who is hating on the movie online come from such a considered potion as me. People will hate things just to hate them. And yes, some people are sexist. I don't deny that there are awful, awful people out there who have targeted Ghostbusters given it's now prominent role in the press.
HOWEVER, to imply that the main criticism of Ghostbusters is a gender issue is fucking moronic. It dismisses all of the other reasons that people don't like the look of this movie. There are a multitude of concerns for this movie. Here are just a few of them:
- Some people don't like reboots
- Some people wanted to see a continuation of the Ghostbusters 1 & 2 story
- Some people didn't even want another Ghostbusters movie at all
- Some people want the original cast to be involved more than just an obligatory cameos
- Some people don't like Paul Feig's back-catalogue of directorial credits
- Some people don't like the past work of the main cast
- Some people don't like the style of comedy
- Some people are concerned about the racist stereotypes that have come out of the trailers
- Some people are concerned that this movie has been made with a hidden agenda
- Some people don't like the stylistic choices of the visual tone and music choices
I could go on, I really could, but we would be here all day. Point is, there are a multitude of factors that inform someone's decision about a movie. And that is ABSOLUTELY OKAY.
Image Credit: denofgeek.com
Judging something, like a movie, based on your own personal ideals and tastes is fine. It's when you start shoving those ideals and tastes down the throats of others, claiming to to be the correct opinion is fucking stupid. There's honestly room for an entire debate on what constitutes art in movies, or treatment of licenses, or what place personal vendettas have in journalism, or what effect online criticism has on a product. There are THOUSANDS of other, more interesting debates we could be having about movies, but right now, the focus is being pulled toward the gender issue is silencing the others debates. And that's even against the multiple outcries on the issues of quality that are being levelled by the audience. Case in point...
Sony Have Been Censoring Criticism To Heighten The Issue
Oh yeah. Get a load of this. According to multiple sources, like the users of GameFAQs, Reddit, YouTube (In the comments of the very trailer we're talking about, no less) and some Tumblr users, Sony have been selectively deleting comments on the Ghostbusters trailer, taking out comments that criticise the movie's comedy and visual style... but leaving the trollish comments that focus solely on the sexism controversy at hand, bumping the dislikes to 1 million or just straight up vomiting onto the screen with biased hate. Even if you try to Google for stuff about Sony deleting criticism, you're met with a multitude of feminist-fuelled articles from the so-called press. Hmm. Funny, that.
Image Credit: screenweek.it
So what's going on here? Surely, if Sony wanted to do damage control on the hate, they'd just turn the comments and ratings off and allow the trailers to just exist as trailers without any audience input. This is an option available to YouTube creators, so why haven't Sony done it? They could immediately silence all the voices they are at odds with. But, so far, Sony haven't done that. In fact, the second Ghostbuters trailer wasn't even released on the official Sony YouTube channel, but was still met with similar contempt and criticism. Admittedly, we're asking this from a company who allowed thousands of confidential emails to be compromised, not once but twice, as well as the same company who managed to fuck up Spider-Man twice. Sony, it seems, are a little out of touch. Falling behind from the ever progressing society it aims to profit from.
So maybe, just maybe, this is what Sony WANTS.
So maybe, just maybe, this is what Sony WANTS.
Theory: The Creatives Behind Ghostbusters Want To Embrace Or Actively Push Gender Politics For Positive Press Coverage and Profit
Okay, DISCLAIMER time again. I can't PROVE what I'm about to write, but I think looking at the evidence before me, there's a solid case to be made that members of the creative team behind Ghostbusters either predicted the backlash, wanted to explicitly address gender politics, or have elected to used the gender controversy in their favours as a form of damage control. Again, I DO NOT REPORT THIS AS FACT, JUST A HYPOTHESIS.
So, I think there's a case to be made that Sony wants this to happen. I've been delving into the WikiLeaks Sony email dump and I've found a bunch of emails from Sony execs and Paul Feig himself that supports a hypothesis that Feig, producer Amy Pascal and other members of the creative team have made this movie with either the express purpose or a reactionary purpose of riding the feminist gender politics news wave straight to the fucking bank. Let's take a look:
So, I think there's a case to be made that Sony wants this to happen. I've been delving into the WikiLeaks Sony email dump and I've found a bunch of emails from Sony execs and Paul Feig himself that supports a hypothesis that Feig, producer Amy Pascal and other members of the creative team have made this movie with either the express purpose or a reactionary purpose of riding the feminist gender politics news wave straight to the fucking bank. Let's take a look:
Image Credit: ghostbusters.com
Firstly, we have to understand Amy Pascal. Pascal was once head of Sony Pictures Entertainment and is a vocal feminist, as shown from this Forbes interview. Her aims are to "put more women on screen" and "make more films relevant to women", in her own words. After the scandal of the Sony hack, Pascal was fired from her position for a series of racially insensitive emails. But let's not focus on the race issue here, to the collective sighs of thousands of feminist who hold her in high regard. Let's not focus on that when we can identify that Pascal is a supporter of the extreme feminists in entertainment, including feminist indie game dev Zoe Quinn, who is now getting a movie made about her involvement in Gamergate by, who else, Pascal's new company Pascal Pictures.
Now Paul Feig, who is also a self described 'feminised geek'. Whilst not an out-and-out feminist, he does believe in prioritising women in comedy roles and changing scripts in Hollywood to include women or recast roles for women. Feig puts this down to his early life growing up around women and being more in touch with his feminine side due to this. Feigs last four directorial outings have also been female-centric. Oh, and Paul Feig is also a fan of the infamous Anita Sarkeesian, publicly supporting her Feminist Frequency project.
Now, let's take a look at some emails. Firstly, this one, that Amy Pascal sent to herself, which is a huge list of the then-Sony Controlled IPs and franchises, which curiously includes a separate list at the bottom titled 'Female Franchises/Movies'. A month later, this email from Amy Pascal is sent to a bunch of Sony execs, seemingly discussing potential directors for the Ghostbusters reboot, which also seems to suggest that The Lego Movie directors Chris Miller and Phil Lord were once interested in the project.
Now Paul Feig, who is also a self described 'feminised geek'. Whilst not an out-and-out feminist, he does believe in prioritising women in comedy roles and changing scripts in Hollywood to include women or recast roles for women. Feig puts this down to his early life growing up around women and being more in touch with his feminine side due to this. Feigs last four directorial outings have also been female-centric. Oh, and Paul Feig is also a fan of the infamous Anita Sarkeesian, publicly supporting her Feminist Frequency project.
Now, let's take a look at some emails. Firstly, this one, that Amy Pascal sent to herself, which is a huge list of the then-Sony Controlled IPs and franchises, which curiously includes a separate list at the bottom titled 'Female Franchises/Movies'. A month later, this email from Amy Pascal is sent to a bunch of Sony execs, seemingly discussing potential directors for the Ghostbusters reboot, which also seems to suggest that The Lego Movie directors Chris Miller and Phil Lord were once interested in the project.
Image Credit: tv3.ie
Months go by with only minor references to the Ghostbusters franchise. Then, in July of 2014, Pascal begins to circle Feig by asking her associates what they think of him in email threads. A month later, Pascal and other execs shit themselves in an email thread when Feig's involvment and the female focus is leaked to the press. At the same time, Pascal is conversing with Anita Busch at Deadline trying to push announcements of female-centric productions, and in this thread, shows her anger that Variety ran the Feig story and that people disagree with the all-female casting decisions.
Then, this fun little tidbit. Feig sends Pascal a link to an amatuer BlogSpot blog and shits on it for disagreeing with the all-female route for Ghostbusters, saying it's worthy of a piss-take dramatic reading. Pascal responds, clearly on the same wavelength, saying she may forward it to Mike Flemming. And who is Mike Flemming? The guy who was supposed to announce the involvement of Feig and the all-female direction for Ghostbusters. Oh, who also wrote this feminism-charged parody article about the initial backlash that very same month.
Later that month, speed picks up for multiple Ghostbusters movies in the form of it's own cinematic universe. There is buzz in these emails for an all-male centric movie set in the same, rebooted universe that was to be directed by Joe Russo and star Channing Tatum and Chris Pratt. The execs were buzzed, clearly seeing dollar signs.
Then, this fun little tidbit. Feig sends Pascal a link to an amatuer BlogSpot blog and shits on it for disagreeing with the all-female route for Ghostbusters, saying it's worthy of a piss-take dramatic reading. Pascal responds, clearly on the same wavelength, saying she may forward it to Mike Flemming. And who is Mike Flemming? The guy who was supposed to announce the involvement of Feig and the all-female direction for Ghostbusters. Oh, who also wrote this feminism-charged parody article about the initial backlash that very same month.
Later that month, speed picks up for multiple Ghostbusters movies in the form of it's own cinematic universe. There is buzz in these emails for an all-male centric movie set in the same, rebooted universe that was to be directed by Joe Russo and star Channing Tatum and Chris Pratt. The execs were buzzed, clearly seeing dollar signs.
Image Credit: joblo.com
Finally, we get some details for the reboot in September 2014. Feig pitches his movie in this email, which includes the all-female cast, but with a strange plot concerning the Ghostbusters coming together to fight the ghosts of serial killers and criminals from the past, whilst being assembled and subsidised by the government in a covert, secret operation. Whether or not any of this has made it to the movie remains to be seen. Pascal loves the pitch.
Later in October, the press is clawing for details on the movie. This email thread shows the utter disaster the execs at Sony have in having a line to pitch for the movie. They can't commit to any description, because they fear calling it a reboot, something which Feig is vehemently trying to make fact. This also involves Ivan Reitman, the producer and director of the original Ghostbusters, who shows signs of disdain for the mess of the direction of the PR surroudning the movie,
Later in October, the press is clawing for details on the movie. This email thread shows the utter disaster the execs at Sony have in having a line to pitch for the movie. They can't commit to any description, because they fear calling it a reboot, something which Feig is vehemently trying to make fact. This also involves Ivan Reitman, the producer and director of the original Ghostbusters, who shows signs of disdain for the mess of the direction of the PR surroudning the movie,
Image Credit: screenrant.com
I know that was a lot to read, but now we have a picture to paint. A very pally relationship between Pascal and Feig, who clearly operate on the same wavelength concerning the female message, much to the trouble of Sony execs and producers. The two also are aware and have created relationships with members of the press at sites like Deadline who will report their decisions favourably and push their agendas. Finally, the two are vocal on their stances and have gone on to mention this more and more in interviews as the controversy has built around them, with Pascal even committing fully to a feminist agenda in her new company.
I don't think it's a stretch, then, to suggest that this movie has it's roots deep set in using a well-known IP in order to push the personal feminist agendas of Pascal, Feig and feminist members of the press at sites like Deadline, Washington Post and Vanity Fair. Whether or not this was planned, a happy accident or a mixture of the two, the creators of this movie have opened this discussion with intent and with a clear skew toward the socially active feminists that work in the entertainment industry.
AND ALL OF THIS WOULD BE FINE IF IT WAS MADE CLEAR TO US. But the misdirection of the discussion of quality and content to the debate of gender politics has only served to cover the backs of an out-of-touch studio, offer an easy defence for the cash-in contributions of those involved and betrayed the people involved in this would-be war of ideals. If anything, the gender issue that has surrounded the movie has been used by both sides of the debate to bully, belittle and bash people left, right and centre who just have thoughts on the quality of the product, rather than it's message. This has been done moreso by the feminist camp, however, which is clear to see in fully realised action, when people like Patton Oswalt, Dane Cook and a variety of 'news' outlets and Twitter users come out to shit on James Rolfe (Angry Video Game Nerd) just because he doesn't want to see the movie.
Again, I CAN'T PROVE THIS, but these cards stack up awfully well in my eyes.
I don't think it's a stretch, then, to suggest that this movie has it's roots deep set in using a well-known IP in order to push the personal feminist agendas of Pascal, Feig and feminist members of the press at sites like Deadline, Washington Post and Vanity Fair. Whether or not this was planned, a happy accident or a mixture of the two, the creators of this movie have opened this discussion with intent and with a clear skew toward the socially active feminists that work in the entertainment industry.
AND ALL OF THIS WOULD BE FINE IF IT WAS MADE CLEAR TO US. But the misdirection of the discussion of quality and content to the debate of gender politics has only served to cover the backs of an out-of-touch studio, offer an easy defence for the cash-in contributions of those involved and betrayed the people involved in this would-be war of ideals. If anything, the gender issue that has surrounded the movie has been used by both sides of the debate to bully, belittle and bash people left, right and centre who just have thoughts on the quality of the product, rather than it's message. This has been done moreso by the feminist camp, however, which is clear to see in fully realised action, when people like Patton Oswalt, Dane Cook and a variety of 'news' outlets and Twitter users come out to shit on James Rolfe (Angry Video Game Nerd) just because he doesn't want to see the movie.
Again, I CAN'T PROVE THIS, but these cards stack up awfully well in my eyes.
Image Credit: nbcnews.com / twitter.com/melissamccarthy
So, What Now?
Ultimately, that's down to you. You can make any decision you want regarding this movie and no bully, bigot or idiot can tell you what to do otherwise. If you want to watch the movie due to the talent involved, the humour used, the franchise name or the new-found social standing, that's entirely your decision. If the elements don't add up for you, then don't watch it.
That's the one thing we should remember about this whole debacle that people are sort of missing. It's a movie. People are getting up in arms over everyone elses decisions, but it is, after all, a movie. There are probably movies you've heard about and wanted to see and equally not wanted to see. That's your freedom in action there. Can we just focus on the that for a moment? I'm having to explain the concept of freedom of choice. Is that not, in some way, entirely fucking backwards?
That's the one thing we should remember about this whole debacle that people are sort of missing. It's a movie. People are getting up in arms over everyone elses decisions, but it is, after all, a movie. There are probably movies you've heard about and wanted to see and equally not wanted to see. That's your freedom in action there. Can we just focus on the that for a moment? I'm having to explain the concept of freedom of choice. Is that not, in some way, entirely fucking backwards?
Image Credit: pmcvariety.wordpress.com
In my opinion, that is merely one element of why I can't support this movie. It's a summer blockbuster that has become a tent-pole for activism, and I personally don't go to the movies for politically motivated reason. When I watch a movie, I go for escapism. I go for an engaging story, or some form artistic merit, or just to be distracted for a few hours from reality. But Ghostbusters doesn't do it for me. As a wholly unnecessary reboot of a popular 80's comedy/action franchise, with very little for me to enjoy in terms of comedic value and equally disappointing slapstick action, it's a movie that doesn't appeal to me, regardless of the surrounding controversy. And honestly, the controversy doesn't help. The last movie that online activists jumped on trying to force a feminist agenda onto was Mad Max: Fury Road, and I'm not interested in in the possibility of having another escapist experience ruined by the highly opinionated and deeply personal politics of the vocal few on the internet from both camps. Once this article ends, I want absolutely nothing to do with it.
And to be frank, I don't care in the least bit what people think of me and how I choose to spend my money. If I want to spend my money on Ghostbusters, I will. But I really, really don't want to. I'll probably put that money toward a game that I have more chance of enjoying or towards a day out with the friends that I have that won't judge me entirely on my decision to watch a goddamn Paul Feig movie.
So, in short, I don't want to watch a movie and if that deeply offends you, that's fine. Whatever. But just understand that your taking offence means nothing to me. Feel free to state your opinions, but realise that they are just that; Opinions and nothing more. And to those on the fence, exercise your human right of free choice and do whatever the fuck pleases you. Life is short enough as it is without being guilt-tripped by either side of this ridiculous argument, so do whatever the fuck you want with your time and money, like a normal, rational person would. There you have it. Ghostbusters: Busted.
And to be frank, I don't care in the least bit what people think of me and how I choose to spend my money. If I want to spend my money on Ghostbusters, I will. But I really, really don't want to. I'll probably put that money toward a game that I have more chance of enjoying or towards a day out with the friends that I have that won't judge me entirely on my decision to watch a goddamn Paul Feig movie.
So, in short, I don't want to watch a movie and if that deeply offends you, that's fine. Whatever. But just understand that your taking offence means nothing to me. Feel free to state your opinions, but realise that they are just that; Opinions and nothing more. And to those on the fence, exercise your human right of free choice and do whatever the fuck pleases you. Life is short enough as it is without being guilt-tripped by either side of this ridiculous argument, so do whatever the fuck you want with your time and money, like a normal, rational person would. There you have it. Ghostbusters: Busted.
By Mike Owen
@ThatMikeOwen
The Editor in Chief of Foul Entertainment, Mike edits most of what you see on the site. He runs the production of our podcasts, and currently pens Pop Culture Club and The Death of Video Games
@ThatMikeOwen
The Editor in Chief of Foul Entertainment, Mike edits most of what you see on the site. He runs the production of our podcasts, and currently pens Pop Culture Club and The Death of Video Games
