The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Will the New SJW ‘Ghostbusters’ Be a ‘Disaster of Biblical Proportions’?

Posted on | July 10, 2016 | 64 Comments

“While the new ‘Ghostbusters’ successfully empowers female movie stars, that’s not the movie’s selling point. However, it’s the only justification for its existence. . . .
“At the end of the day, no amount of culturally enlightened intentions can rescue another undercooked studio product.”
— Eric Kohn, IndieWire

The early reviews of the new SJW feminist Ghostbusters remake are trying to say as politely as possible that this movie sucks. Because the producers have spent a lot of money hyping this turkey, and because everyone in the liberal media wants to believe that a comedy can pass the “Bechdel Test” and be a commercial success, it is too early to say that this wretched piece of feminist propaganda will be a box-office flop. Like all movie remakes based on decades-old franchises — The Flintstones (1994), Scooby Doo (2002), etc. — the idea is that parents will pay money for their kids to see something that the parents enjoyed 30 years ago.

Every such movie ever made has sucked, so far as I know. And let me confess a prejudice: I never much liked the original Ghostbusters, either.

Like so many other movies spawned from Saturday Night Live‘s original cast, the 1984 Ghostbusters was just about cashing in on the popularity of a TV comedy phenomenon. Nobody under age 50 today remembers the movies Chevy Chase made with Goldie Hawn (Foul Play in 1978 and Seems Like Old Times in 1980), but instead remember Chase for the National Lampoon’s Vacation franchise that began in 1983, and also for Caddyshack (1980) in which Chase was upstaged by Rodney Dangerfield and by fellow SNL alumnus Bill Murray. If we had to rank the best all-time movies starring 1970s-era SNL cast members, none could match Animal House (1978) with John Belushi, and perhaps Caddyshack is a distant second, or maybe third behind the Belushi-Dan Akroyd project The Blues Brothers (1980). Depending on how you rank Chevy Chase’s film output, Ghostbusters might rank fourth or fifth among SNL-spawned movies, but it definitely wasn’t nearly as good as Animal House or Caddyshack.

My prejudice against Ghostbusters is in large part a function of my bias against the gimmicky SNL cash-in genre of which it was a part, but I also have a strong bias against movies with supernatural themes. Anything with magic, witches, wizards, vampires — no, I don’t like that stuff, and except for the original Friday the 13th (1980), can’t recall very many horror movies that I ever actually liked. The Exorcist (1973) was not nearly as good a movie as the novel on which it was based, which was one of the scariest books I ever read in my life. Because I believe that supernatural evil is quite real, I dislike the recent trend in which some kinds of “magic” are portrayed as benevolent. Any movie in which wizards and vampires are depicted as heroes I consider to be simply satanic.

Also, I don’t believe in ghosts. The dead are dead, and will remain so until the Resurrection and Judgment Day. As goofy as Ghostbusters was, I remember being uncomfortable in 1984 with how the movie played with the idea of paranormal activity as comedy fodder. The best scene in the whole movie — “a disaster of biblical proportions” — treated as laughable the idea of Old Testament “wrath of God type stuff,” which I do not consider a joke. The fact that Ghostbusters came out just about the time the scope of the AIDs epidemic was becoming apparent added a dark subtext to this apocalyptic humor: “Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! . . . Human sacrifice! . . . Mass hysteria!”

Indeed, weird things were going on in 1984 and maybe Ghostbusters was a metaphor for things nobody was supposed to joke about, but finding any kind of politics in that silly movie is a stretch, although every libertarian laughs at Dan Aykroyd’s famous line: “Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything! You’ve never been out of college! You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results!”

Which brings us back to the idea of the new Ghostbusters remake, a deliberate feminist political statement. The message of the all-female cast is simple: Males are useless, because girl power saves the day!

 

Sometimes I’ve called this “Lesbian Ghostbusters” because it was predictable, from the moment the project was announced, that this new movie would emphasize a familiar “Third Wave” feminist theme of males as either (a) incompetent idiots or (b) evil oppressors. Like so many recent feminist movie projects, the new Ghostbusters aims to pass the “Bechdel Test,” which originated with lesbians who did not want to see either male heroes or heterosexual romance in movies.

Imagine a world in which males are never competent, honorable or courageous. Therefore no man can ever be a hero, nor deserve a woman’s love. This is the worldview that Hollywood must reflect to placate feminists, who demand female characters so “empowered” that males exist as ancillary characters to serve the narrative of female heroism.

Variety critic Peter Debruge very much wants to like the new Ghostbusters, but its problems are too obvious to ignore. The movie “suffers from a disappointingly strong case of déjà vu,” Debruge writes. One element of the film’s deliberate feminist role-reversal features beefcake actor Chris Hemsworth as “an assistant too dumb to realize he’s being objectified.” Hemsworth represents the male as incompetent idiot theme of feminist cinema, and what about the male as evil oppressor? Debruge explains that the new Ghostbusters plot hinges on “a disgruntled white guy (Neil Casey), [who] has been inviting noxious visitors from the spirit world to cross over for his own nefarious purposes”:

Once the ladies manage to track this sad sack down, the movie grinds to a halt as the heavily armed group of scientists (whose arsenal has gotten a major upgrade since the earlier film) try to talk him out of destroying the world. That’s pretty much the point where “Ghostbusters” stops being funny enough to sway the haters who’ve become such a vocal presence online — a phenomenon the film actually goes out of its way to acknowledge, as McCarthy dismisses such sexist comments as, “Ain’t no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts,” that appear beneath the group’s YouTube videos.

Get it? Hahahaha.

Not content with the “disgruntled white guy” as villain and the pretty boy Hemsworth as dimwit male eye candy, the new Ghostbusters also had to take a self-referential jab at the naysayers who predicted that this movie would be one of the most unwatchable flops since Ishtar.

While the movie doesn’t open until Thursday, so we won’t know for a couple of weeks whether prophecies of its commercial failure were accurate, the new Ghostbusters nevertheless seems to conform to what the naysayers predicted it would be. Maybe the pre-sold audience will be large enough to rescue the movie from being a catastrophic box-office failure. Perhaps media hype in the pro-feminist climate of an election year where Hillary Clinton is running for president will form enough of a wave to lift this chick-flick comedy to success. However, the new Ghostbusters is apparently not a movie intended to make money, but rather to preach a feminist sermon, and Debruge predicts that the producers are likely to take a “write-down” and lose money.

Well, a mid-July release date isn’t exactly a gesture of confidence from the studio. If they thought the new Ghostbusters was a winner, Sony would have released it in May or perhaps waited for September. My fear is not so much that this feminist project will succeed, but rather that it won’t fail hard enough to discourage similar projects in the future.

 


Category: Movies, Sex Trouble

Comments

64 Responses to “Will the New SJW ‘Ghostbusters’ Be a ‘Disaster of Biblical Proportions’?”

  1. NeoWayland
    July 10th, 2016 @ 5:39 pm

    You’re not demanding that no one watch the film and even deny it’s existence.

    I’ve seen commentary that demands that this film be acknowledged as comedy classic and a keystone feminist film.

    You don’t like the idea of the film but you think people should make their own minds.

    That’s the difference between the (non-existent) “conservative agenda” and the (very much in your face obey-or-else) progressive agendas.

    It all rests on the right to willingly walk away from things you don’t like.

    I may not agree with you on everything, but I know that helps keep peace.

  2. RS
    July 10th, 2016 @ 5:44 pm

    I watched an online critique which noted that one big problem with the movie was that it didn’t pay homage or even make reference to the original franchise, other than some lame cameos by the former stars. In other words, it doesn’t provide a reason for the 1984 fans to get on board. Had there been some symbolic “passing of the torch” to the new crew–perhaps having the original characters’ daughters take over the family business–it might have had a better reception. Instead, it seems they want to use the “Ghostbusters” moniker to get butts in theater seats but want to ignore the 1984 film and its universe in its entirety.

  3. CrustyB
    July 10th, 2016 @ 6:03 pm

    Female Ghostbusters, black female Iron Man, black James Bond, homosexual Sulu, black Nick Fury and black Muslim homosexual Spiderman (did they ever follow through with that idea?) Now they want homosexual Luke Skywalker, homosexual Capt. America, homosexual Poe and the black dude from “Force Awakens,” and I read last week on Bing that James Bond might be gay. Do blacks, women, muslims and homosexuals have any original characters? This is cultural appropriation!

  4. mole
    July 10th, 2016 @ 6:07 pm

    Would it have killed the makers to have included a female that wasnt a swamp donkey in the lineup?

    It might be good, it might be crap, but if it follows the near iron law of remakes it will be pretty ordinary.

  5. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    July 10th, 2016 @ 7:06 pm

    Maybe they should have done an all female version of Animal House first…

  6. robertstacymccain
    July 10th, 2016 @ 7:06 pm

    My main interest is helping people understand why feminist ideology, in being anti-male, is also necessarily anti-heterosexual. Most people see this kind of “empowerment” stuff and don’t bother to think about the underlying message. First is the idea that unless women do everything men do — including ultra-violent action-hero movie roles — that somehow women are victims of discrimination. Second is the way in which, by showing women as powerful and independent, feminist narratives convey the idea that male are irrelevant and useless. Third is the fact that the villain in such narratives is always — ALWAYS — a white heterosexual male, usually coded with some kind of “right-wing” persona. (Like the way villains in Disney movies always seem to have British accents — Jeremy Piven or David Ogden Stiers.) Add in the “Bechdel test,” and you basically eliminate the possibility of any heterosexual romantic plot element and, as these types of movies are intended to appeal female audiences, you have to ask, “What is the actual agenda? What is didactic intent here?”

    People should not be naive about such things.

  7. concern00
    July 10th, 2016 @ 7:33 pm

    Perhaps feminists should direct their anti-male hostility to targets more worthy of their concern…
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/first-transgender-athletes-set-to-compete-for-england-in-olympics

  8. Jeanette Victoria ?????????
    July 10th, 2016 @ 7:58 pm

    I can do a pretty decent exorcism….you see I don’t believe in ghosts either, what people think are ghost are really demons. I spend 10 years being deeply involved with ceremonial Magick and summing demons to visible appears. I know how evil REALLY is.

    On a purely secular level these women are really UGLY who wants to see a film where all four of the main characters are ugly women?

  9. Daniel Freeman
    July 10th, 2016 @ 9:09 pm

    My fear is not so much that this feminist project will succeed, but rather that it won’t fail hard enough to discourage similar projects in the future.

    It would have to take down the studio for that to happen. The only way this A/V pyrite could get made is if Sony Pictures Entertainment is fully SJW infiltrated, at which point an organization ceases to be concerned with its primary function, due to the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence. Its stored resources are now just for the cultists to burn through in pursuit of immanentizing the eschaton.

    Sony Corporation (SNE) is large and diverse, so I don’t know how much impact the movie segment can have on its overall financial health. However, I would certainly take this as a sell signal if I owned any stock, since we can be sure that the gnostics in the film subsidiary will leech as much as they can get away with.

  10. CrustyB
    July 10th, 2016 @ 9:25 pm

    Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Bailey?

  11. 0Zen
    July 10th, 2016 @ 10:04 pm

    Leaked Sony emails via WikiLeaks :Bill Murray being forced to promote new GhostBusters movie? https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704

  12. JT
    July 10th, 2016 @ 10:47 pm

    It’s an assault on the eyes.

  13. JT
    July 10th, 2016 @ 10:52 pm

    “none could match Animal House (1978)”

    I disagree. While _Animal House_ is a decent movie, _Happy Gilmore_ is the greatest SNL-cast movie ever.

  14. DeadMessenger
    July 11th, 2016 @ 12:55 am

    Feminist movies flat-out suck. Ok? I’ll say it. This one will be a dud, and frankly, it would be that way even if the cast were all men. Its time has passed.

    I want to see Chris Hemsworth as Thor, and I want to see him chuck his hammer at people, and rescue a world full of maidens and damsels in distress. I’m not at all interested in gender studies-major lesbians pretending to be knights in shining armor. I can’t even imagine what sort of motivation caused a studio to invest a single dollar in this crap.

    Hey studios! Seems like you need a good statistical modeler and forecaster. Have your secretary call my secretary. We’ll do lunch.

  15. DeadMessenger
    July 11th, 2016 @ 1:04 am

    Which is why the whole idea sucks. The vast, vast, vast majority population already bought into the depiction of the heroes, frankly, being like them. Get over it. They’ve since introduced original homosexual characters, for instance; frickin’ use them.

    The day they turn Captain America gay is the day I stop watching those movies. Captain America is not gay. He’s Christian. Live with it. You picked him on Day One. For crap’s sake, can these studios not pander one single time to their incredibly larger audience? Would earning a level of profits beyond the dreams of avarice not suit them? It has before. Do they not have stockholders? What the flipping hell are they thinking? Gay James Bond? Pussy Galore told me personally that that idea sucks. (Get it?)

  16. DeadMessenger
    July 11th, 2016 @ 1:08 am

    +1000. Absolutely correct. “A/V pyrite” sums it up nicely.

  17. DeadMessenger
    July 11th, 2016 @ 1:10 am

    Well hell, his career has long been over, so “forced” is probably a pretty weak term. He has nothing to lose, so if I were him, I’d promote any kind of monkey crap they throw against a screen if I got money for it.

  18. DeadMessenger
    July 11th, 2016 @ 1:16 am

    I had to give it a lot of thought, but I’m forced to agree: Happy Gilmore, yeah. I’d probably tie Caddyshack and Animal House for second, but only because of Belushi.

  19. DeadMessenger
    July 11th, 2016 @ 1:21 am

    Good. Yes. Ruin the Olympics. It will only take this one time, and suddenly, no one will give a rat’s rear end about the Olympics anymore. And even SJWs will be forced to question the unbelievable audacity and asininity of this ploy. Because then the following Olympics will become the Trannie Special Olympics, and no one will watch.

  20. DeadMessenger
    July 11th, 2016 @ 1:25 am

    Hey Amber, use your newfound wealth to invest in this:

  21. DeadMessenger
    July 11th, 2016 @ 1:25 am

    Yes. Way to reveal the plot of the next Marvel movie.

  22. DeadMessenger
    July 11th, 2016 @ 1:27 am

    You mean like The View?

  23. DeadMessenger
    July 11th, 2016 @ 1:30 am

    Maybe instead of a McLaren, you should buy a dictionary for the Chinese hackers writing your copy.

  24. Daniel Freeman
    July 11th, 2016 @ 5:40 am

    Thank you, I almost didn’t use that turn of phrase, but I knew people here would get it.

  25. Daniel Freeman
    July 11th, 2016 @ 6:25 am

    Okay, but what’s the worst SNL-spawned movie? My vote goes to Nothing But Trouble, because it’s such an unexpected bait-and-switch — Chevy Chase, Dan Aykroyd, and John Candy, in a disturbing horror movie — that it can actually be traumatizing.

    Like many, I was completely unprepared for the Bonestripper scene, and it haunts my memories to this day (no joke). I wish it had merely been a complete waste of time; that would’ve been a step up.

  26. Jeanette Victoria ?????????
    July 11th, 2016 @ 7:07 am

    LOL exactly!!

  27. Toastrider
    July 11th, 2016 @ 7:08 am

    Er… no. Murray is well known (notorious) for having a somewhat eccentric way to evaluate roles; you call an answering machine, make a short pitch, then hope he calls back.

    I don’t doubt Sony would have liked to pressure him into promoting the Fauxbusters, but it probably wouldn’t have ended well.

  28. Toastrider
    July 11th, 2016 @ 7:11 am

    I kept trying to get into magic, but every time I went to the library their copy of the Necronomicon was always checked out, by some guy by the name of A. Alhazred…

  29. Jeanette Victoria ?????????
    July 11th, 2016 @ 7:13 am

    Ouch

  30. Toastrider
    July 11th, 2016 @ 7:34 am

    True story! This was a running gag in many libraries when H.P. Lovecraft’s Mythos tales came out. Good times.

    I do enjoy a good supernatural yarn, whether the horrifying cosmic monstrosities of Lovecraft or the fairly down to earth ‘more dakka’ solutions of Larry Correia’s MHI novels 😉

  31. NeoWayland
    July 11th, 2016 @ 7:42 am

    I disagree with you in part. I do not believe that all feminists are a monolithic block, any more than I believe that all Christians take their marching orders from the Vatican.

    I do believe there is a very visible group that cares less for rights and more for the adoration, deference, authority, and fame they think they deserve. In the last six months or so I’ve started calling this group the FamousFeminists®.

  32. NeoWayland
    July 11th, 2016 @ 7:48 am

    I’d argue what sells Captain America is not his Christianity but his character.

    The reason he has so much charisma in this day and age is because he believes things like honor, faith, and a ton of other virtues while the people around him have to be convinced.

    That’s why they follow him.

  33. M. Thompson
    July 11th, 2016 @ 9:43 am

    What about “Blues Brothers”?

    They were on a mission from God (or at least the Penguin).

  34. Steve Skubinna
    July 11th, 2016 @ 9:52 am

    The feminists that define the terms and teach the courses do fit McCain’s description. So while your “Not all feminists…” objection might be true, it also might be irrelevant because the narrative is in the hands of the radicals.

    And having used the “Not all…” formulation I am struck by the irony that these same feminists produced the “Yes all men…” hashtag.

  35. Steve Skubinna
    July 11th, 2016 @ 9:53 am

    It also doesn’t help the new film that the producers appear, either deliberately or inadvertently, to have alienated all of the original fan base.

  36. Steve Skubinna
    July 11th, 2016 @ 9:54 am

    Speaking of the McLaren, when do I get the keys to yours?

  37. Steve Skubinna
    July 11th, 2016 @ 10:01 am

    Funny, I have been reading a few places online about how Cimino’s steaming turd of a flop Heaven’s Gate not only killed UA but effectively ended the era of the wunderkind auteur.

    So it sometimes does happen that a fetid stinkeroo provokes a sea change. Generally Hollywood has targeted their films to the largest potential base regardless of ideology because it’s a business. While they are by and large hard core leftists they know what people will pay to see, and so they usually put their politics into the smaller art films that take the Palm d’Or and generate buzz at Sundance and in the industry press but don’t rake in the revenue.

    So it will be encouraging if this latest attempt to mainstream SJW thuggery crashes and burns. Go Patriarchy!

  38. Steve Skubinna
    July 11th, 2016 @ 10:03 am

    I considered trying to work it into my reference to the Palm d’Or above but decided that the attempt would be leaden. Or at the least too brazen.

  39. Steve Skubinna
    July 11th, 2016 @ 10:05 am

    Spies Like Us?

    No horror though, unless you paid to see it in a theater…

  40. DeadMessenger
    July 11th, 2016 @ 10:37 am

    Sorry, I haven’t scammed enough visitors to my hack site yet.

  41. DeadMessenger
    July 11th, 2016 @ 10:46 am

    I don’t think his Christianity is what sells his character. But there’s no denying that he is a Christian, and yes he does display the virtues that were imbued into the character when he was originally written. Dramatically changing a fundamental part of an established character in order to pander to maybe 2% of the population would damage the franchise, as well as damage the ability of the viewing audience to suspend disbelief.

    That’s what I’m saying. Although I personally like seeing flashes of Cap’s Christianity, and I can’t be the only one. And it’s part of his character. I don’t see anything wrong with it, and neither should Marvel, unless they’re bigoted Christian haters, which would not be a good position to take for a company that hopes to make money off Christians. Besides, its not like he’s Captain Evangelism or anything.

  42. robertstacymccain
    July 11th, 2016 @ 10:50 am

    “… I do not believe that all feminists are a monolithic block …”

    Which is irrelevant to my point. All “feminist consciousness” begins with the idea that women are oppressed — they are victims of systematic unfairness, social injustice, sexism, “rape culture,” etc.

    Beginning with such a premise, the question becomes, “How far are you willing to go in destroying the civilization responsible for this oppression?” When feminists identify “society” or “culture” as the source of women’s victimization, what do they mean? Who is the enemy in feminist ideology, and how do they propose to fight that enemy?

    There is an inherent radical tendency in feminism that most critics of the movement are unwilling to address directly. Too many critics are willing to cede the premise of the argument (i.e., that women are universally oppressed), without bothering to interrogate that claim and force feminists to define their terms. My approach, by contrast, is to show where feminism leads — the movement’s radical tendency — and to require every feminist either to repudiate such extremism, or else to admit that this extremism is inherent to their ideology.

    For too long, opponents of feminism have permitted the movement to evade such questions, and this is why feminists keep winning easy victories.

  43. Daniel O'Brien ?????????
    July 11th, 2016 @ 10:53 am

    “Trannie Special Olympics” — I see what you did there. 😉

  44. FLOP! New Feminist ‘Ghostbusters’ Toys Already on Clearance Before Movie Opens : The Other McCain
    July 11th, 2016 @ 11:29 am

    […] the new Ghostbusters proves to be “a disaster of biblical proportions,” what should we expect Hillary Clinton’s presidency to be? How long before feminism ruins […]

  45. If All You See… » Pirate's Cove
    July 11th, 2016 @ 12:00 pm

    […] blog of day is The Other McCain, with a post on the new SJW “Ghostbusters” […]

  46. NeoWayland
    July 11th, 2016 @ 12:06 pm

    You and I both know that the Tea Party and Brexit were characterized by “leaders” who did not know what the rank & file wanted.

    Women were never universally oppressed, and I know feminists who say so. But I also know strong women who were paid less, who were passed over for promotion, who were told that their husbands would have to sign for them. This happened through the mid-1970s in America. In some regions it lasted well into the 1980s.

    Change was needed.

    Change is still needed. We need to stop enabling victimhood. We need strong women and heroes. We need moms, aunts, sisters, and grandmothers who won’t take guff from their menfolk, but will stand for their families and their communities.

    The really strong women don’t depend on government to do it for them.

    They don’t need to.

  47. NeoWayland
    July 11th, 2016 @ 12:15 pm

    What can I say, I am doing the reluctant advocate thing again.

    I know ladies who do not buy into the terms and course content. They also aren’t the type to go on talk shows and “make a fuss.”

    But they are the ones who stand up for their families and friends. They just do.

    The least I can do is honor them.

  48. JosephBleau
    July 11th, 2016 @ 12:19 pm

    That reads more like they are getting ready for a lawsuit over the script being such a rip off, though you’d think they’d have all the rights to it already. 2013 seems way too early to be trying to get him to promote it. Maybe they just wanted his approval of them doing the movie as an exercise of caution.

  49. Steve Skubinna
    July 11th, 2016 @ 12:20 pm

    Can you even imagine a gender studies major taking action and facing risk in anything?

    For them, the worst horror they must deal with on a daily basis is the barista at Starbuck’s misspelling their name on the cup.

  50. NeoWayland
    July 11th, 2016 @ 12:23 pm

    The thing is, if the Marvel execs believed in his character, his religion and sexuality wouldn’t make any difference.

    This shoehorning thing, this thing where the “creative” people drop a “minority” into an established role, well, that is just silly.

    If a female character was strong enough to be the new Iron Man, she would be strong enough to make a name for herself.