I Ain't Afraid of No Bros: How "Ghostbusters" Empowers Female Fans

[Shawn Hopkins]

Like I said before, seeing a movie is pointless if you don't consider it good because when the studio only really cares about money, paying to see it is the same as saying you loved it and want more. And I already know how bad it is.

You really don't know. And there's nothing wrong with not seeing it, but criticizing it as if you have and getting everything wrong is irritating. If you want to give an honest and full-throated condemnation I'm afraid the price of admission is, um, the price of admission. Maybe go to a matinee?

[Shawn Hopkins]

Yeah, I should stress that there nothing wrong with women rocking moments, heck I'm one of the people who really want more female superhero films, but equality works both ways, and when you have a movie where virtually every man is shown as inept or selfish and the like, there's going to be some fallout.

This really isn't a male-bashing movie. The only "bad" male character is the villain. I guess the dean of Abby's college who fires her and the sexist dean of Erin's college aren't nice people, although they aren't major presences and play the same role as the jerk college administrator from the original in moving the plot along by kicking the Ghostbusters out of academia. The Mayor is kind of an oddball, with some weird lines ("Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws!") but although they try to cover up the ghosts they are actually much nicer to the new Ghostbusters than the original mayor was. They don't go to jail or anything or need convincing. The Mayor's assistant actually treats them worse, because she's nice to them to their faces and then turns right around and runs a campaign to make them seem crazy.

I am 'bashing' the movie at you put it, though I would call it being critical, more from the evidence I have gleamed from numerous sources like the leaked script and behind the scenes drama they had, most of which have showed me how bad it is. Adding the treatment of some fans by the developers and putting them all under one banner of sexists if they dared to criticise the movie at times. Though I shall admit towards the end they seemed to realise that was a mistake...

The leaked script isn't what made it to the screen. The sexism drama has no impact on the quality of the movie itself. You can be mad about that, but it's dishonest to say it somehow makes the movie itself worse.

[Derek Metaltron]

You really don't know. And there's nothing wrong with not seeing it, but criticizing it as if you have and getting everything wrong is irritating. If you want to give an honest and full-throated condemnation I'm afraid the price of admission is, um, the price of admission. Maybe go to a matinee?

Maybe I will when the broo haha calms down or when it's on Netflix or something, but right now I still feel the best way of saying you don't like the premise of a movie is not watching it, at least whilst it's in cinemas.

[tg1982]

furthermore, you haven't addressed my question: why is 'shooting a guy in the balls' not okay, but a ghost blowing a guy is okay?

I'll go ahead and address this for you. Why would a ghost giving someone a BJ be bad? A little weird sure, but it was a supernatural comedy. No one forced the ghost to do it, and Stanz never objected to it, quite the opposite, in fact, he really seemed to enjoy it. Mean while you have a director who has had a history of having women shoot male antagonists in the cock and balls (The Heat), shoot a ghost in the balls. Let's see how a PG13 comedy would do if they shot a female ghost between the legs...I'm willing to be there'd be quite the outrage.

T

There's also a big stinger that almost guarantees a sequel.

he Super Mario Bros. movie and The Last Airbender both had one of those as well and neither of them got a sequel. Because they were bad movies that underperformed.

Or Green Lantern, or any of a dozen other movies.

Then why have I heard dozens of reviewers saying that it was? I swear at times it's like reviewers have seen two different movies or something.

I was just about to type this. There are a few reviewers who mentioned this.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Maybe I will when the broo haha calms down or when it's on Netflix or something, but right now I still feel the best way of saying you don't like the premise of a movie is not watching it, at least whilst it's in cinemas.

That's fine, just realize no one gives your haterade any credit when you haven't seen it and your inaccurate criticisms make that clear.

[Bradley]

You can't be critical about a movie you haven't seen. You can say things like, "I haven't liked anything else Paul Feig has directed, therefore I probably won't like this." But that's still not a critical evaluation of the film.

I think Ghostbusters might be the best blockbuster of the summer. It might be tied with Civil War-- I'll need to see both again before I can decide which one was better. But Ghostbusters not only had funny gags-- just as the original did-- it also had a compelling story featuring characters with relationships you care about and who have arcs that change them (well, maybe not McKinnon's character so much, although she does get a great moment towards the end of the film that suggests growth). The original Ghostbusters didn't really have that. It had some really funny moments, and it had a well-crafted plot, but the characters were rather thin.

Don't get me wrong-- I love the original Ghostbusters. I saw in in the theater more than once as a kid, and I watch it every few months even now. It's a favorite. But it's not a perfect film, and it's not sacrilegious to remake it-- especially when the remake is as good as this movie is.

I also wanted to mention to the author of this article, if she's reading comments, that this is a fantastic piece of writing. Thoughtful and thought-provoking, a sort of cultural studies by way of the personal essay. I'd like to see CBR publish more reflective work like this. To hell with what the "haters" have to say on the subject.

[Derek Metaltron]

The fact is whilst I haven't watched the movie, due to what I do know, and it is a lot, anytime someone says it's the best thing since sliced bread I can't quite take them that seriously. The worst offender of it seems to be that they want it to be its own thing, yet rip so much of it off so badly to be annoying. The trouble right now is that Sony have thrown doubt into all corners enough that you don't know what to think. Are those positive reviewers done for an agenda because of what has occurred, or are negative reviewers unfairly judging it? (And yes, perhaps I might be in this camp, but I'm working from what I know, and what I know is bad.)

Maybe also if the developers hadn't tried to rope all honest critics into the same 'you're all sexist manbeards for hating it' - especially people like James Rolfe for example - I would also be more willing and forgiving, but seeing that treatment made me less desired to watch it.

[tg1982]

The fact is whilst I haven't watched the movie, due to what I do know, and it is a lot, anytime someone says it's the best thing since sliced bread I can't quite take them that seriously. The worst offender of it seems to be that they want it to be its own thing, yet rip so much of it off so badly to be annoying. The trouble right now is that Sony have thrown doubt into all corners enough that you don't know what to think. Are those positive reviewers done for an agenda because of what has occurred, or are negative reviewers unfairly judging it? (And yes, perhaps I might be in this camp, but I'm working from what I know, and what I know is bad.)

Maybe also if the developers hadn't tried to rope all honest critics into the same 'you're all sexist manbeards for hating it' - especially people like James Rolfe for example - I would also be more willing and forgiving, but seeing that treatment made me less desired to watch it.

Or like what happened to Richard Roeper. He panned the movie then had to make a follow up addressing the hate-storm he got for it.

[Shawn Hopkins]

The fact is whilst I haven't watched the movie, due to what I do know, and it is a lot, anytime someone says it's the best thing since sliced bread I can't quite take them that seriously. The worst offender of it seems to be that they want it to be its own thing, yet rip so much of it off so badly to be annoying. The trouble right now is that Sony have thrown doubt into all corners enough that you don't know what to think. Are those positive reviewers done for an agenda because of what has occurred, or are negative reviewers unfairly judging it? (And yes, perhaps I might be in this camp, but I'm working from what I know, and what I know is bad.)

Maybe also if the developers hadn't tried to rope all honest critics into the same 'you're all sexist manbeards for hating it' - especially people like James Rolfe for example - I would also be more willing and forgiving, but seeing that treatment made me less desired to watch it.

It really does seem like butthurt about that is the main and only driver of your criticism. You don't have any objective experience of the film itself. I don't think that's fair, lots of movies have controversies surrounding them but they should be judged only by what's on the screen.

[BeastieRunner]

Then why have I heard dozens of reviewers saying that it was? I swear at times it's like reviewers have seen two different movies or something.

Or something. I swear most of the negative reviewers didn't even watch the movie. Just took some info from the script leak, the trailers (where most of the material was not included in the final movie), and second-hand summaries.

spoilers:

After Slimer steals the Ecto-1 and we learn that all the junk Holtzman put on the top of it was basically a nuke (hence why that can't just immediately stop Slimer when he steals the car), they heard him to the vortex so they can blow up the Ecto-1 inside the vortex. It sets off a chain reaction that creates total protonic reversal (a factoid they used to make the new trap earlier). The Vortex then turns into a giant trap, if you will, and sucks in all the ghosts, except Rowan. He's too big and strong. Abby tells the team that they need to loosen his grip or they'll be stuck with him when the vortex closes. This is a pretty big deal as they already showed that the team can't stop Rowan in this form with the gear they had. So they all look at each other and do what pretty much any woman would do when a man won't let go ... they ALL shoot him in the crotch (no crossing streams required in this movie). He lets go, gets sucked into the vortex, and takes Abby with him. Erin grabs a tow cable and jumps in after her. She blasts Rowan's hand, grabs Abby, they have a BFF moment, their hair turns white, and Patty/Holtzman pull them out in the nick of time. They think they've aged many years, ask what year it is and Holtzman tells them that it's 2040 and our President is a plant! Patty sets the record straight and dumb blonde Kevin explains where he went to get a sandwich. And then the conclusion of the movie gets rolling after that climax, with character moments, congrats, New York love, and full funding from the feds or state (I'm not sure what level of the government ends up funding them). The team crotch blast was short and sweet. It was shorter than what was depicted in the trailer where Abby rounds the corner, shoots him by himself, does the the whole victory dance thing, and runs away. That was never in the film.

end of spoilers

Abby never shot Rowan like what is depicted in the trailer.

[poneley]

Great article Casey. Share the enthusiasm!

I really enjoyed the movie. It was not perfect, it had some typical Hollywood movie tropes that I didn't really enjoy. But I did enjoy how it portrayed women-- and for some of us, that''s a big deal. I'm not a woman but it matters to me.

My favorite parts were some of slapstick comedy, the visual jokes and the really dumb but funny puns. OH and McKinnon is now one of my absolute favorite comedians and action movie actors. I am totally in love with her after seeing her "gunslinger" routine at the end of the movie. Her bravado mixed with goofiness is just awesome. I loved every scene she was in.

I'm glad this movie was made. Because of the message it conveys and because of the fun factor. And because McKinnon just ROCKS at being the super wacky action movie hero.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I guess I didn't have a problem with the crotch zapping because I grew up in the 80s, when all-out ball-assault was a major plot device in every comedy and the basis of America's favorite television show, America's Funniest Home Videos.

[tg1982]

Or something. I swear most of the negative reviewers didn't even watch the movie. Just took some info from the script leak, the trailers (where most of the material was not included in the final movie), and second-hand summaries.

spoilers:

After Slimer steals the Ecto-1 and we learn that all the junk Holtzman put on the top of it was basically a nuke (hence why that can't just immediately stop Slimer when he steals the car), they heard him to the vortex so they can blow up the Ecto-1 inside the vortex. It sets off a chain reaction that creates total protonic reversal (a factoid they used to make the new trap earlier). The Vortex then turns into a giant trap, if you will, and sucks in all the ghosts, except Rowan. He's too big and strong. Abby tells the team that they need to loosen his grip or they'll be stuck with him when the vortex closes. This is a pretty big deal as they already showed that the team can't stop Rowan in this form with the gear they had. So they all look at each other and do what pretty much any woman would do when a man won't let go ... they ALL shoot him in the crotch (no crossing streams required in this movie). He lets go, gets sucked into the vortex, and takes Abby with him. Erin grabs a tow cable and jumps in after her. She blasts Rowan's hand, graps Abby, they have a BFF moment, their hair turns white, and Patty/Holtzman pull them out in the nick of time. They think they've aged many years, ask what year it is and Holtzman tells them that it's 2040 and our President is a plant! Patty sets the record straight and dumb blonde Kevin explains where he went to get a sandwich. And then the conclusion of the movie gets rolling after that climax, with character moments, congrats, New York love, and full funding from the feds or state (I'm not sure what level of the government ends up funding them).

end of spoilers

Abby never shot Rowan like what is depicted in the trailer.

So they did, in fact spoilers:

Shoot the ghost between the legs

end of spoilers

[MikeP]

Well, Lewis's law is fully in play here : "The comments on any article about feminism justify feminism."

My standard response: the actions of feminists justify criticism of feminism.

[Derek Metaltron]

It really does seem like butthurt about that is the main and only driver of your criticism. You don't have any objective experience of the film itself. I don't think that's fair, lots of movies have controversies surrounding them but they should be judged only by what's on the screen.

Well we clearly have different opinions about this movie, and yes you can claim to be more arguably objective on having seen it, but it still cannot be denied that Sony shot itself in the foot for treating fans that way, only really relenting to separate honest criticism and actual sexist manhate at the eleventh hour.