As previously established, Star Wars didn’t do it for me. Oh, I certainly liked it, appreciated it, even recognized it for the total game changer that it was. But it didn’t resonate inside me. The movie that did? Ghostbusters. Like the classic low-brow comedies preceding it (Meatballs, Animal House, Blue Brothers), it played beautifully as a comedy, but that wasn’t the only reason I watched it a half dozen times in the theater. It was because it also worked as a serious supernatural adventure movie, taking the theme of those comedies, ragtag band of misfits vs. authority, one step beyond. To a place where the (as Bill Murray appropriately calls their lower caste in Stripes) mutants couldn't just beat the snobs, but could use their smarts, and smart mouths, to be actual heroes and save the world. And at the time that was a message that I really needed to hear.
And a lot of them hated it because it featured a female cast. There are a lot of pieces on the subject on the Internet but the first one to come up for me was "Angry Baby-Men Hate the New 'Ghostbusters' Trailer" by Molly Fitzpatrick, which appeared on the Fusion website. It reprints tweets from some of the (as the Variety piece called them) "disgruntled sexist fanboys;" you can go see for yourselves but among the pertinent points were ...pandering to social justice warriors and feminists, ruined my childhood, PC police strikes again, and (apparently, in all seriousness) women ruin everything. I myself watched a YouTube video claiming that the film was both an "unholy bastardization" of Ghostbusters and "a progressive, politically correct chick flick."
Now, to be fair, a lot of people seemed to have disliked the trailer because they honestly felt that it was a bad trailer, and naturally there are plenty of posts that made that point by picking it apart, frame by frame. Or because they thought it was yet another absolutely unnecessary remake/reboot that couldn’t possibly live up to the original, something that exists solely because someone had the rights and wanted to make lots and lots of money. And I must admit I have some sympathy for that viewpoint. In the last couple of years, there’s been any number of unneeded cinematic do-overs. I know I must be missing a few, but just off the top of my head there was Jurassic Park, Point Break, Poltergeist, Fantastic Four, Annie, Conan, Robocop, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, etc.
But most of the comments were, to politely paraphrase Ghostbusters writer-director Paul Feig, "vile" and "misogynistic" to a stunning degree. I really shouldn’t be surprised by all this bestial boys club crap; I’ve been a fan of so many things for so long, I know the ugly side of fandom.
Being a fan is supposed to be about loving something, but it’s easy to begin focusing on everything that’s wrong with it. Easy, and let’s face it, fun. I’m no saint, I know just how much fun hating can be. And to quote Elroy Patashnik (from the final season of the TV series Community), "like anything else that makes you feel good, if you don’t put a lid on it, there’s no lid."
So, I finally watched the trailer with my expectations intentionally set at zero. Then I saw these words appear on the screen, "30 Years Ago Four Scientists Saved New York City,"* and honestly it gave me chills. Knowing almost nothing about the movie, I didn’t know it was going to acknowledge the OG’s (Original Ghostbusters). And finding out that they had, that they hadn’t been forgotten, well, I was all in.
Before the trailer was over I wanted to see it again, and before it was finished I was looking forward to seeing the movie in the theater (in some weird sort of synchronicity sort of a deal, it opens on July 15th and my birthday is the 18th). I could be (as I so often am) wrong, but I’m choosing to be optimistic and have something to do look forward to. And for those out there who don’t think "girls" can’t be Ghostbusters, they obviously need to see the movie again because they didn’t get the message. Anybody can be heroes if they get the call.
* Though I have to admit the nerd in me had to parse the first part of it: four scientists? Well, Venkman, Stantz, and Spengler were all certainly scientists, but Zeddemore? I suppose "three scientists and their entry-level new hire technician" doesn’t have quite the same ring. The original movie never actually tells us what his background is, but then I realized the obvious. While a science degrees is what most employers are looking for when employing scientists, to be a scientist all you really need to do is, you know, science. In that Zeddemore more than qualifies.
The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff of ICv2.com.