Ghostbusters 2016 Review Part I

Well the movie has been out for a week. I’ve been hoping to get this review up but it’s taken a while to figure out what I want to do with it because there are a couple of points that I’d like to make and as I was writing the review, it was becoming as big a monster as the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. 

But I really want to do the review because the original Ghostbusters happens to be one of my favorite films. My friends and I were huge fans of the film when it was released in 1984 and saw it repeatedly during the time it was out. I was not overly happy with the way the production team was treating any fan who expressed worry that they wouldn’t be able to handle it and as it turns out, I don’t think they were able to handle it. While it’s not as bad a movie as I thought it would be based on the trailers Sony itself released, I can honestly say that I think I laughed four times during the movie. The jokes are weak and often fall flat and the paranormal part of it isn’t overly scary. Especially considering the cartoon colors they use for the ghosts.

And I can’t help but think so many of the people calling it hilarious are sort of giving it a pass they wouldn’t have given if the controversy (some of it I believe ginned up by Sony) wouldn’t have happened. It’s noble to want to defend the cast who have indeed been hit by some incredible examples of walking (or blogging) misogyny, but if the movie was stronger, they wouldn’t need to be defended. They wouldn’t need a “handicap”.  They’d have quality material to put into the trailers released in an effort to entice people to see the movie. 



They wouldn’t need people who hadn’t even seen the movie yet claiming it was going to be awesome (at the same time slamming the original which is something I discussed in a previous blog entry which you can access here). Let the movie, the cast, the writers and director rise or fall on their own merits. And what I saw had little merit. 

So I’ve decided to do two reviews, each focused on a point of contention I have about the project and the controversy in general. This entry will focus on the idea of a remake/reboot. The next entry will focus on the misogyny angle. And there will be some spoilers though I'm guessing anyone interested in going to see it has seen it by now.

The other day, to my comment that the producers had borrowed way too much from the original for the 2016 version to be a reboot (I insist it’s a remake), someone insisted it was a reboot and that the producers had barely borrowed anything. 

I’m not quite sure if she saw the same movie I did, or if she saw the original, but the fact is, there was a lot swiped from the original for this movie. And I think it’s to the current film’s detriment because it forces a comparison to the original which simply had better material.

When deciding on an approach for the project, a passing of the torch movie would have probably been the best choice. It would have acknowledged the original and allowed for new blood (if done correctly as it was in “Star Wars the Force Awakens”, it can be exciting). A passing of the torch movie had been discussed with perhaps the daughters of the original Ghostbusters taking over the work, but that apparently was kiboshed. Personally, I think such a movie could have been a lot of fun. And it would have pleased a lot of the “Ghostbusters” fans who’ve been hoping for another installment in the series for years.

Like it or not, the original “Ghostbusters” is an iconic movie for adults who saw it when it first came out as I did and people who were kids when they saw it later. There's a reason for this: Partly because it was such a unique movie at the time (comedy with big budget special effects), but mainly because it was really good. An exceptional and organic blending of humor, horror and the paranormal. 



But when the new project was announced, Paul Feig insisted that he was going to do something completely original. Starting with making all the Ghostbusters female (I’ll discuss that in the second review). And as I watched “Ghostbusters” 2016 I started thinking, since they hadn't made a passing of the torch movie, that a reboot would have been the next best thing. It would have given both the production team and the audience the chance to enjoy a brand new take on the concept.

Despite his insistence, what Paul Feig and co-writer Katie Dippold ultimately created was a remake, and that's where part of the problem stemmed from. Hardcore fans (the ones he would later insult because they didn’t jump for joy over his casting choices) didn't want a remake. They've been anxious for a third “Ghostbusters” movie in the series (though many are making do with the video game as the third movie). Sure “Ghostbusters II” was off kilter, I believe partly due to the fact that at that point, Columbia Pictures was so concerned about merchandising and marketing to kids since the original had proven such a hit with the kids. But it wasn't a terrible movie. There were some really good aspects to it. Fans wanted a carrying on of the series without writing out the original Ghostbusters.



Making a remake as if the original never happened was bad enough, but then to swipe so many key elements of the original to prop up this remake just adds salt to the wound. And it only added excess baggage to the film by using elements that the “creative minds” behind the film just weren’t able to handle. 

Let’s consider some of the elements, down to the beats of the original that were used in this movie. The very beginning (a curator in a historical mansion comes upon paranormal happenings that frighten him) harks back to the original (in which a librarian at New York Library comes upon paranormal happenings that frighten her) in tone, pacing, even in the way the original Ghostbusters theme started up over the action toward the end of the scene and led us to the next scene. The only difference was the wretched excess that was used in the scene (a problem throughout the movie). 

Through a series of events, Dr. Erin Gilbert (Kristin Wiig) reunites with her old friend Dr. Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) who she’s had a falling out with years before. Abby is doing paranormal investigations with Dr. Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon). Erin mentions being contacted by a man who told her of a ghost appearing in a mansion (the ghostly haunting that opens the film) and the three rush over to the mansion the way the three originals rushed over to the New York Library to investigate the ghostly haunting that opened that film. (This, by the way, is when the wonderful “messing of the pants” joke is driven into the ground which unfortunately seems to be the highest level of humor the remake can achieve).

So…in the library of the mansion, the three paranormal investigators confront the ghostly woman. Just like in the original. And as in the original, the woman seems relatively normal…outside of the whole ghost thing. And as in the original, these three women have no plan on how to communicate with the ghostly woman. And as in the original, when one makes a try for it, the woman turns into a hideous creature and scares them out of the building.

The library ghost in the 1984 Ghostbusters

I don’t think we’re even a quarter of the way into the film and already it’s borrowed a number of major elements from the original. But in this case, it goes one better (or I suppose I should say, worse). It takes an element that occurs later in the original and crams it into the mansion scene. In the original, slime is used quite sparingly. It appears on the card catalogs in the library and Bill Murray has a fun scene dealing with it. But the only other time it’s used a lot for the sake of a joke is when the Ghostbusters go to the hotel to catch the ghost that will be later known as Slimer. When he goes through walls, he leaves a little slime behind. 

While investigating one of the hallways, Murray’s character Venkman has a run in with Slimer which is actually kind of a tense scene. Cut to Stantz (Dan Aykroyd’s character) running down the hallways to help his friend only to find Venkman rolling around on his back on the floor like a turtle (because of the proton pack) and covered in slime. He then utters the immortal line, “He slimed me.”

Now in her rather pathetic piece appearing on Time.com, "Sorry but the Original Ghostbusters Isn't Even that Good", Stephanie Zacharek claims that this is the sort of line that sounds "...like a parody of dumb comedy writing, the sort usually accompanied by an aggressively fake laugh track." Which is her prerogative to think. But it’s ironic that the line is not only considered one of the most quotable lines in the movie, the crew of the 2016 version (the version she said in the piece that she liked) thought so much of the concept of sliming that it takes the concept to such idiotic heights. When the mansion ghost turns into the monstrous entity, she opens her maw and vomits about 80 gallons of slime on Erin in what I’m guessing the writers thought would be one of the funniest scenes ever filmed. It wasn’t. It was stupid and over-done like so much in the movie. But it’s also a direct rip-off of a funnier scene in the original (and probably also a rip-off of countless scenes in countless Nickelodeon shows). Perhaps Stephanie Zacharek is easily amused.

The mansion ghost from Ghostbusters 2016 spewing wild

And the similarities with the original continue. As in the original, this experience convinces the women that they can actually do something with this paranormal investigating.

The three paranormal investigators, in an effort to get a grant to get better gear, visit the dean of the “institute” (a loose description since the institute seems fairly shady) where Abby and Jillian were conducting their research. The dean’s name is Yeager and once he realizes that the department was even still functioning, he promptly throws them out of the institute. A name and move straight out of the first movie in which the grant of the three soon-to-be Ghostbusters at Columbia University has been terminated and a Dean Yeager is only too happy to inform them that they’re out of the University. In the original movie it’s used basically as a narrative device to propel the Ghostbusters into their new life. And in the new one, it’s also used as such but goes on much longer. Now the scene in the new movie is actually kind of funny, but don’t tell me that you’re making something fresh and original when you pull a move like that. There could have been any number of reasons invented to make these women go out on their own as Ghostbusters. Feig and crew chose to recreate (remake) a scene from the original movie to accomplish the same goal and even used the name of the main character instigating that change.



Another unnecessary scene swipe comes later in the film as Erin tries to get the mayor’s attention as he and his aide are eating in a fancy restaurant. She’s pounding on one window, then the other, then another, shouting at him. The diners aren’t paying attention and even the mayor and his aide, who do see her, are pretending to not notice her (because in this universe the mayor has decided not to acknowledge the ghost threat publicly to avoid… “mass hysteria.” Yes, another classic line from the original used to weak effect here). As I watched the scene all I could think about was how similar the scene was to the scene in the original where a panicked Louis Tully (played by Rick Moranis who didn't make a cameo in the new film), chased by a demon dog intent on possessing him, runs to Tavern on the Green and pounds on windows, unable in his fright to figure out where the door is. He screams for help but the restaurant patrons don’t even look up until the very last minute when the demon finally gets him. The patrons look up, wait a beat, then return back to their eating as Tully slides down the window. It’s a funny scene, but sort of a sad scene too as you can’t help but feel bad for poor Louis and that’s thanks in large part to Moranis’ sympathetic portrayal.



The scene in the new one just alternates between shrill and bland and all I could think about while watching it was how good the scene was in the original. And that’s why I say all the remaking and re-purposing was to the new film’s detriment.

But it goes on:

In looking for a base of operations, the ladies visit the firehouse that was featured in the original (but it’s too expensive for them so they have to choose the office over the Chinese restaurant). Why even feature the firehouse (which they do find their way back to by the end of the movie) at all? The team achieves fame after its first ghost catch (though unlike the original which shows a montage of the team going out and catching ghosts which is why they need to hire help and hire on Winston, this team seems to have caught only one ghost and they don’t seem to have an idea what to do with it). The team meets with the mayor (in a scene much more sedate than in the original). The gear is similar, the traps are similar, the car is similar (and is even called the Ecto 1).

The threat is similar (something is breaking down the barriers between this world and the next and the ghosts are breaking through), they use possession to advance the plot (in the original it was the client Dana played by Sigourney Weaver) and Louis Tully; in this one it’s the team’s secretary, Kevin played by Chris Hemsworth), there’s a face off at the end with an entity that apparently has god-like powers and the end battle involves a giant figure of a cute character who comes to destroy everyone. This is perhaps the most egregious swiping as Rowan, the evil entity in the remake allows them to choose the form of their destructor. That’s straight out of the original movie.  

The difference, of course, is that while it was handled hilariously in the original, it was handled ridiculously in the 2016 version. The reveal of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man (who also makes an appearance in this film as a parade balloon) is probably one of the funniest scenes in a movie. It’s a perfect build up to the absurd humor of it all. 



In the 2016 film, the “turning” of the Ghostbusters logo into the giant destructor is ham-fisted and really not very funny. Again, it goes back to the wretched excess and an inability to know when to stop because at that point there's so much being thrown at you that you don't really care.

Which was what all those "whining fanboys" out there were worried about when some pinhead at Sony said, “Hey, I know, let’s remake ‘Ghostbusters’!” Fans of the original were worried that the source material would be used by people who had no idea how to use it right. 

And let’s be honest, all this plot, character, scene borrowing and allusions to the original is Sony hedging its bets. The first trailer they released tells us that 30 years ago four scientists got together to save the world as a soft piano rendition of the "Ghostbusters" theme plays. Then the first scene you see is the original Ghostbusters logo on the wall of a subway. The problem is those four scientists in the universe of this remake, never existed. So why bring them up unless you want to spark interest for the new film in the fans of the original? Why was it so important to have cameos of the original actors (albeit playing different characters) in this movie if you’re simply erasing all thoughts of the original with what you term a reboot? Heck even Slimer has a cameo which makes no sense since he wasn't a part of the new Ghostbusters busting scene. 

There’s talk that Sony had to strong arm some of the actors, especially Murray, to appear in the film. That could be why Murray gives the performance of a man who would really rather not be there at all. But with those cameos Sony can say, “See, we have nothing but respect for the original film. We even included the original cast.”

Outside of the late Harold Ramis’ “cameo” (a bust of him is seen in the hall outside of Erin’s office) and Ernie Hudson (who plays Patty’s uncle from which she borrows the hearse for the Ecto-1) the cameos are fairly forgettable and actually sort of gum up the pacing of the film when they occur. Hudson’s, which is okay, is at the end and actually made me think of how easily this movie could have been a fun passing of the torch movie with a bit of tweaking. Aykroyd (who has a piece of the film) plays a cabbie who claims, “I ain’t afraid of no ghosts”, Annie Potts (the wonderful secretary Janine from the original) plays a hotel manager, Sigourney Weaver plays a mentor of Jillian’s (which might have been great but too little time is given to the scene as it runs during the credits).

But Bill Murray’s…what can be said about the weird little scene they concocted for Bill Murray? 

He plays a skeptic who goads Erin into releasing the one ghost they managed to catch (I’ll address this more in the second part of the review because it certainly didn’t scream, “Girl Power”). He sits through most of the scene and when the ghost does fly out of the trap, it takes hold of Murray’s character and tosses him out the window. 

Yes…there is a notable death in the movie. Now that’s something they didn’t steal from the original because no one was killed during that movie. At least, no one was shown being thrown to his death by a ghost. And after, when the girls…well I’d say "rush" downstairs but it seems like they take a leisurely stroll to get downstairs considering how the police and Homeland Security are on the scene by the time they got on the street, they're taken to see the mayor by Homeland Security. No one seems overly upset over the fact that a man was just tossed out the window and is lying broken on the ground below their office. No one asks the team to make statements. You’d think something like that might just tarnish the team’s reputation slightly. 

So you have a film with all these elements from the original film practically the same plot which the producers insist isn’t a remake, it’s a reboot. They’re rebooting the franchise. Please, don’t do me any favors.

And yet, toward the end of the film, as I finally started warming to the characters, I thought of all the potential wasted on this project. If they weren’t going to do a passing of the torch movie, then they should have went for a true reboot and made minimal if no use of the original source material. That’s what I meant about the baggage that was in this movie. How do you not compare the two movies when so much of the original is used for the remake and in that case, how can you not think, “Christ they did this better 30 years ago”?

I also left the movie with the firm belief that as a writer and a director, Paul Feig is creatively lazy. Not only with the humor, which when it's there goes for the easy laughs but because there are so many things in this movie that he doesn’t even try to make sense on. Yes, I know it’s a comedy about the paranormal, but even in the original, they at least tried to give some context to what was happening. 

Take Rowan, for example, the villain of the story. He might have been a good villain if a little more effort had been spent on developing the character. But Feig seems to go with the Stephen Moffat philosophy of character/plot development which is, “I don't want to make the effort explaining it. Just go with me on this.”

Rowan North (Neil Casey), a busboy at the hotel where the big showdown at the end takes place, is apparently also an occultist trying to usher in the ends times. He builds a big device to break down the barriers between the worlds, then plants smaller devices on ley lines around the city (that’s when he’s discovered by the Ghostbusters) to break down the barriers. Why? I mean obviously he’s nuts (and brilliant) but what made a brilliant man go nuts? Why is he simply a busboy in a hotel (or is that part of his plot since the hotel has such a strong paranormal force to it—it’s really hard to tell)? How long has he been working on this scheme. Where did he get the funding for all this? How has no one discovered the doorway to hell that he’s built in the basement of a major hotel? 

Eventually we discover that he wants the apocalypse because…he was bullied. Now I’m not saying that bullying hasn’t pushed people over the edge. But this is probably one of the lamest reasons a movie has used for their villain trying to destroy the world. And who bullied him? Has he been nursing this hate since childhood? Was he bullied at college? Is he doing it because his fellow scientists laughed at him and his experiments?

If you’re going to present me with a villain who is interested in ushering in the apocalypse, then you’d better give me a better reason than he was simply bullied. Or if that’s what you’re going with, you’d better explain properly.

Rowan forces his own death (oh, that’s death #2 in the remake) so that he can cross over to the other side and apparently become King of the Ghosts. He’s able to possess people as he does with Amy and eventually Kevin, and later does with the military and police forces sent out to battle him. And he’s able to do all these other fabulous and magical things including ordering other ghosts to battle the Ghostbusters, which is interesting considering how, evil as he may be, he’s fairly new to the paranormal realm. Where did this new ghostling get this power? The power to control entities that have been on the other side for centuries?

The end of the movie is over accessorized with product placement

Am I nitpicking? Perhaps. But it would certainly make a more well-rounded movie to have at least some of these details. The original "Ghostbusters" faced off with a god from another realm. That’s how they explained the entity being able to create something like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. 
What do we have in this movie? A guy who was bullied and achieved his power through suicide.

A similar questions comes in to play when Kevin suddenly decides he wants to be a Ghostbuster. The decision (that conveniently leads to his being possessed) seems to come out of nowhere. In fact, it's hard to imagine this character would desire much of anything he's so vapid and cartoonish. But suddenly he wants to be a Ghostbuster "and no one is going to stop" him. Except for the spirit of Rowan who after possessing Abby in a particularly unfunny and unsuspenseful scene, flies in to possess Kevin.

Explaining a character's decision really does help add to the experience of a movie. But Feig doesn't seem to think it's all that necessary. 

So in the end, this movie was more an excersie in frustration than anything else because of the wasted opportunities. I didn't despise it as I thought I would. I laughed a few times. But when I think of the joy that the original brought me years ago and still does, this movie doesn't even come close.

My hope is that Feig will not be at the helm for a sequel and perhaps they can actually really do something creative with the concept or the characters. Though, judging by the end of the movie, which is a set up for a sequel, there will still be some milking of the old movie. As the women listen to the Electronic Voice Phenomena (played on a tape player that I think went out of style in the 1970s), Patty hears the name Zuul.

Let the games begin again. 

On to Part II of my review.

Ghostbusters 2016: The Controversy

Anyone who knows me knows I am a huge "Ghostbusters" fan. It’s in my Top 5 of all time favorite movies. I saw it in 1984 (as an adult—I’ve heard so many people opine that the new "GB" is “ruining their childhoods” that I feel compelled to remind people that the original was not geared to children even if children ended up liking it) and fell in love with it. To me it is the perfect blend of comedy, horror and the paranormal. I wrote a piece about it when it turned 30 a few years ago that you can read here.

Well, the remake opened on July 15 and I made an effort to go to see it even though the project never appealed to me. But I thought to be fair I needed to see it. So I’ve decided to review it for the blog. 

First, though, I’d like to address some of the rancor that has surrounded the project since its inception. There were people who really wanted another chapter in the "GB" series and there were people who weren't happy about it. I believe the big problem arose when it was decided rather than a continuation movie, they would totally remake it (it's been called a reboot, but there's far too much borrowed from the original for it not to be remake). And I have to put myself in that camp. It doesn't need to be remade. I think they did a really good job with the first one. This universe is so rich that I think a continuation movie could have been made very easily.

And studios need to understand something: You're putting out product that you're hoping touches the hearts of the audience (so said audience will continue to go see the movies). So yeah, you're going to have some fans invested in the movie. And they may not be happy with your decision to try to wipe the slate clean by completely remaking the movie that the fell in love with. Especially when remakes can fail so often. You don't have to listen to them, but they're not assholes for feeling that way.

Whether it be movies, books, music, motorcycles, whatever, we all have that one thing that we'd really appreciate nobody screwing with. It won't end the world of something is redone, but it does stick a little none the less.

This one still hurts. And I'm not
too fond of the 2014 version either.

Add to the problem Hollywood's current need to remake, reboot, redo EVERYTHING! Rather than have an original thought, they decide to just grab something that was popular years ago and redo it knowing that there is a built in audience for the material (which again, is why it's wise to show a little more respect to fans of the originals). While some remakes have been very well done, if people are gun shy it's because so often they fail miserably. 

So fans of the original "Ghostbusters" weren't overly happy when they found out that there would be a remake of a movie that got it right the first time. 

Then came the announcement of the cast and there was a contingent of people who just rejoiced that the leads were all female. And of course you had some who weren't happy that the leads were all female. And some who simply weren't happy about the particular actors who were chosen (I would fall into that category). But no matter what the reason was for the discontent, those unhappy with the project were all thrown into the "misogynist" camp by its defenders. Yes, the only reason these "manboys" didn't like it was because the leads were all female, or so the narrative held. Anything else was invalid. 

Over the course of time from the announcement of the project to the release, there seems to have been three main stages of argument (a bit like the four stages of grief) used by defenders of the project to invalidate the opinions of anyone that might have differed from theirs. And bear in mind, and prior to release, neither side had seen the work, yet the defenders of the project were as vociferous in their praise for it as they accused the detractors to be in their condemnation.

But watching the stages occur over time has been fascinating. They range from the childish to the unfair to the down right hypocritical.

Let's start with the childish (and most pathetic) which seems to be the most recent (third) stage people are using to insist that the aversion others have for this project is just plain wrong. 

Stephanie Zacharek, in her piece that appeared July 14 on Time.com, uses a sort of playground argument to defend the "Ghostbusters" remake by titling her op ed, “Sorry, But the Original Ghostbusters Isn’t Even that Good.” This is something I've heard a lot of people say lately, most of whom haven't even seen the new movie, when discussing it. Sort of like children saying, “Oh sure you can do a somersault, but it’s not even that good of one!” Zacharek's piece is a desperate little diatribe against a movie 30 years old that for a good majority of people still holds up but for her…well she’s decided that it was never that good. So that must be right. 

Here’s a little taste of her clever assessment of the original film: “But the movie’s pacing isn’t nearly as brisk as it could be, and the lines of dialogue Ghostbusters heads love and quote most—‘He slimed me’—sound like a parody of dumb comedy writing, the sort usually accompanied by an aggressively fake laugh track. By the end, the picture’s spirit is gloomy and ill-humored, as if it had tried hard to be a dark comedy and simply failed, leaving a vaguely sour taste in its wake.”

No, you're right, this scene isn't nearly as funny as a scene where a ghost vomits a couple of gallons of slime on the protagonist. 

Well…part of the reason the picture’s spirit may have seemed gloomy toward the end was because it wasn’t just a comedy and the climax featured them fighting a god to keep the end of the world from happening. But maybe that fact slipped past her because the color palette wasn’t Nickelodeon-bright.

Here’s a quote from the review film critic Roger Ebert (I miss him) gave it at the time: “They're funny, but they're not afraid to reveal that they're also quick-witted and intelligent; their dialogue puts nice little spins on American clichés, and it uses understatement, irony, in-jokes, vast cynicism, and cheerful goofiness. Rarely has a movie this expensive provided so many quotable lines.”

Sorry Steph, but I think I’m going with Ebert on this one. Here’s a clue, the movie’s pacing isn’t supposed to be brisk. There’s more going on in it then one-liners. But again, perhaps you were confused by the understatement and subtlety. For example, in "Ghostbusters" 2016, a great deal of time…really far too much time…seriously a sickeningly long amount of time is spent describing the contents of a man’s pants after he messed them upon seeing a ghost. Oh...my sides still burn from laughter on that gem. 

Now to be fair, in the original, Bill Murray as Peter Venkman did ask the librarian whether or not she was menstruating when investigating paranormal activity at the library. But it was a one off joke to illustrate just how out of his element he was in the whole paranormal investigating thing. He didn’t go on for five minutes discussing color, flow and viscosity.

That’s the difference between the original and the new movie. The creators of the first movie knew when to stop. 

I mean honestly, how weak is the horse that you’re backing when to praise it you have to denigrate a 30 year old classic film?

I understand that the original "Ghostbusters" isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. And I’m not always sold on the notion that ticket sales translates into a work of art. I mean, "Transformer" movies are still being made.

But the original "Ghostbusters" was a blockbuster when it was released. It was re-released very successfully a few years ago on its 30th anniversary (which probably helped Sony at last green-light a new stab at the project that had been floating around for decades). And it remains one of the most widely quoted movies ever made. There had to be some sort of quality backing all that. 

I will admit that I wasn’t dancing for joy when I originally heard about the new reboot/remake/redo whatever they were claiming it would be (it’s changed over the years of production). Quite honestly, because of the cast. And no, not because they’re women. 

See, that’s the other thing you have to do if you question the cast chosen for "GB"2016. It couldn’t possibly be that you just don’t find those actors funny. No, you have to assure everyone that you aren’t being misogynistic because that’s the narrative so many of the project’s defenders have been trying to drive home from the moment the names were announced (and even as a woman, I’ve been called misogynistic for not liking this cast). This is first stage defenders went to the moment the leads were announced. It's unfair. How do you prove a negative? "No, I don't hate the project because the cast is female. No really, I don't." Not to say that there weren’t jerks out there who did rant at the thought of an all-female cast. Get social media involved and you get all sort of creepiness posted on YouTube.

But there were many people such as myself who just weren’t impressed by the actors they chose for the roles. I could think of other women I would have preferred in the roles. In fact, I wrote a blog piece on that when the cast was announced stating that, unlike Lindy West who wrote a piece for GQ on the casting, I did not find it “The most indomitable fucking comic dream team of all kind.”

                          Yeah, sorry these names just didn't instill confidence in the project.

You can read the blog entry here but the bottom line is that I found the group chosen for the "Ghostbusters" remake anything but “The most indomitable fucking comic dream team of all kind.” And Lindy was beating the misogyny drum loudly in the heavy-handed piece starting it out with, “As you may have heard, a few delicate internet man-flowers are terribly, terribly, terribly upset at the news that the beloved 1984 classic "Ghostbusters" is being remade with a stunning ensemble cast of some of 2015’s most hilarious and sought-after comedians.”

My thought at the time was, if that was who 2015 had to offer, could we hold out till 2016 and hopefully find some funnier women?

But no, to Lindy, any nay-saying of the cast was only based on the fact that they were women, not that they might not be that funny. And interestingly, Lindy hadn’t even seen the movie but she decided it was going to be the best movie EVER because women were chosen for the roles. She decided that the all-male original cast was a gender imbalance. I wonder why she was so hating on the men. 

Then came…the trailers. And suddenly, the internet blew up! These were bad trailers. I mean really bad trailers. I mean the sort of trailers where you stare, mouth agape, in stunned silence despite the fact that you’re supposed to be laughing since, you know, comedy and all. Now usually trailers are intended to entice people to see the movie. Your A-scenes are chosen to really whet the prospective viewer’s appetite. Unfortunately it doesn’t always work out. You can have a bad trailer for a really good movie and vice versa. The problem with "GB"2016 was that it didn’t seem to have a lot of A-material from which to create a trailer.  

So if you were already skeptical about the project based on the quality of the actors or director chosen, these trailers did not help. And when people expressed their aversion for the trailers, the old “misogyny” chestnut cropped up again. If you didn’t find the project appealing, it was because all the leads were women not because what they offered in the trailers was really terrible.

How many people who aren’t interested in seeing a Jackie Chan movie are accused of being racists? How many women who weren’t interested in seeing "The Expendables" were accused of hating men?

When the misogyny logic ran its course (or was milked long enough), we entered the second, or hypocritical stage which featured the question: “So…you haven’t seen it but you’ve decided it’s bad? How can you make that claim if you haven’t seen it?” 

Every day people use certain factors to judge whether or not to invest time and money in viewing/reading/listening to a product. That’s why they make trailers and book blurbs and have reviewers, etc. If someone isn’t into the horror genre, they’re not going to read Clive Barker. Very rarely does anyone grill them with, “Oh, but how can you judge whether or not you like it if you don’t read it? Maybe this is the novel that will change your mind.” If someone doesn't appreciate a particular actors work, they don't go see the movie.

When the movie "Pixels” was released, for example, I heard a lot of people say they weren’t going to see it cause they disliked Adam Sandler or they just thought that it looked stupid (both opinions I completely agree with) but I didn’t hear anyone defend that movie as vigorously with the, “But how can you know? You haven’t seen it yet” argument as I did with this latest "Ghostbusters." State that nothing about the new "Ghostbusters" movie seems appealing to you and you’re accused of being a hater and raked over the coals. It smacks of hypocrisy because how many of these people standing up for the new "Ghostbusters" stood up just as self righteously for a film like "Pixels"? (and for that matter, how many women who didn't want to see the movie were accused of disliking it only because there were four leads in the roles?) 

So this whole "Ghostbusters" controversy actually says more about the defenders of the project and the people who toss around the misogyny accusation far too easily than it says about the people they call haters. 

What’s even more fascinating about Stephanie Zacharek’s piss-fest on the original movie (getting back to stage three) is that it was written prior to the release of the movie, which leads me to wonder how she could write, “Thank heavens the Ghostbusters remake came together, against their will and their wishes” when she hadn't even seen if the finished product?

Poor Richard Roeper, reviewer for the Chicago Tribune, did actually see the movie and had the temerity to express intense dislike for the finished product in his review (despite being a huge fan of the ladies in the cast). He paid for that on various social media platforms with the usual slams aimed at anyone who wasn't blown over by "Ghostbusters" 2016. 

 

And interestingly enough, having seen the new "Ghostbusters" movie (I will post a review after this), I can tell you they borrowed a heck of a lot from the original. In my opinion, to the new film’s detriment (which I’ll explain in the review). So…I’m guessing some people connected with the new production must have had a bit more affection for the original than Zacharek might think. In other words, the original "Ghostbusters" must have done something right. 

I will post my review of "Ghostbusters" 2016 on the next post. 

In the meantime:

Author Grace Comerford's Power of Purple!

Today I'd like to introduce you to Grace Comerford, author of Power of Purple: Jackie's Purple Ninja Story. Book 1 in the Purple Ninja Series. Grace is 10 years old and lives in Florida. She has won prizes for citizenship and respect and her novel is an adventure/fantasy work that encourages people to solve problems without violence.

You must still be excited from the Barnes and Noble book fair on March 3 in Clearwater, Fla. Was that the first event of the kind that you participated in?

Yes. There were lots of kids, younger than me there, and they were all fascinated by my book. They loved the cover. One fourth-grader asked me how to write a book like mine because she wanted to write a book of her own.

You'd be around the same age I was when I first really fell in love with the idea of writing. When did it happen for you? Was there something that inspired you?

I love that question! I started to love writing at the ages of 8-9 years old. Writing in class and in my journal at home.

Who are some of your favorite authors?

Oh! Chris Colfer is an amazing author! He wrote "The Land of Stories" series. And Marissa Meyer, who wrote "The Lunar Chronicles" series." Ridley Pearson and Dave Barry who wrote Bridge to Never Land. I like other books too but those kept me asking, "What's going to happen next?"

Tell me about the The Power of Purple. What's the plot? Will there be follow up novels in the series?

The plot is about a girl named Jackie, she's a normal girl until she spins around three times and turns into...Purple Ninja! She makes friendships, problem solves and jumps out of the way of danger at the last second. She wins without violence.

The book starts at Jackie's birth and how she got her powers. She lives in the woods. She battles villains and fights for good. Asmerelda is one of the main villains, she can shoot lighting from out of her hands. The other villains have super powers too.

The rest you'll have to find out.

What was the inspiration for the book?

One day I looked out the window and wondered what to think about and I made up a ninja character out in the woods. She sometimes was dancing to music I was listening to. Sometimes she was fighting off villains. I was only getting to know Jackie at that time. Then I started loving her. Later on, my Dad suggested we put the story into a book. And I WAS SO PUMPED ABOUT IT! I didn't know how the story would go until I started writing it and I didn't know the ending until I wrote it.

What would you say was the hardest thing about writing this book and getting it published?

In fact, the storytelling was the easiest part of the whole book. It was the editing and finding Vippu Kukreja in New Delhi, India to draw the cover was hard. I made her redo it until it was just right.

For the editing, we sent it to my dad's cousin, Mary-Margaret Green who is a (former Washington D.C. newspaper) copy editor. But Dad and I helped edit it too.

Dad's a writer. Is having a father who's a writer intimidating sometimes?

No, because he was a journalist but never wrote an actual novel. And I want everyone to know, having a father who is a journalist doesn't really help you at all. You can do it yourself. Self publishing is a breeze once you read the instructions. You might need the help of your parents but it doesn't matter if they are writers.

Do you think you'll ever team up with him on a book?

Of course. He helped with this one. The story is still mine but I had a lot of help from him. Especially, with the self-publishing.

Does mom like to write?

No.

How about your siblings or friends?

I have no siblings but I do have a cousin about my age and he's inspired to write a book of his own. So many of my friends are so excited that I wrote a book. One friend said she has a book idea too but she doubts she can publish it.

Do you have a particular ritual you follow when you write to help you get into the mood? Do you like to listen to music? If so, what kind?

I love music so much. But I just hop into the library room with my dad, sometimes for three hours at a time and pour my ideas out on the spot.

What sort of hobbies do you have?

I love to read. And write, of course. But read a lot. I like to play basketball. Bicycling. I love to do crafts. I love playing the guitar. I love going to nature parks with my dad. (Power of Purple is set in a forest that my dad and I go to, called Brooker Creek Preserve, it's called Bugger Creek in the book. P.S.: My dad changed the name. Oh, dad!).

When you get older would you like a career in writing?

Possibly, but I really like marine animals such as dolphins, turtles, sharks and coral. Almost all ocean animals. I'm thinking of becoming a marine mammologist, that is the study of animals that live in the sea but breath air like whales, dolphins and turtles.

Your book is fiction. Would you ever try writing nonfiction whether small pieces or a full book? Would you ever try anything like screen play writing?

When I was writing Power of Purple, I was thinking my next book might be nonfiction but now I'm thinking of sticking to fiction. A series. One time my teacher told me my writing reads like a movie because it has so much dialogue.

Do you know the next project you'd like to work on?

Power of Purple is going to be a series. But what I'm going to do after that, I don't know. What's my next book about? I like cliffhangers. You'll see!

Thanks Grace. We'll keep an eye out for your next work.

Power of Purple: Jackie's Purple Ninja Story is available on Amazon. 

For more information you can visit Grace's Facebook page.

Let's Talk Writing with Gerald Dean Rice

Recently I had the pleasure of discussing the art and business of writing with Gerald Dean Rice, a prolific writer from Michigan who has a number of novels and anthologies available on Amazon. 

When did you get interested in writing? 

Sometime when I was a child. I wrote a story when I was in second grade about two witches and I think I tried to write a "Ghostbusters" story back in eighth grade. I didn’t really start writing until high school when I penned a bunch of really one-dimensional horror stories that were more weird than anything else.

Was anyone else in your family interested in writing?

I’d like to think my mother was a writer, though if she ever wrote anything she never shared it with anyone.

I notice that among your books you write about vampires and zombies. What is your favorite subject between the two? Which do you find easier to write?

Zombies. Definitely. I want to write more about vampires and I have an idea I think is pretty cool, but I have several zombie stories ahead of it.

You seem to publish primarily on Kindle. Which format (Kindle or paperback) do you prefer and why?

I don’t have a preference, per se, but Kindle is a lot more convenient. I can write a story, get a cover made and upload the whole she-bang in a week.

You're very prolific. Your Amazon page shows a lot of books, primarily horror, but with a lot of variety in plot. Have you ever had a problem with writer's block and if so, what have you done to clear it up? 

I’ve had writer’s block exactly once. About ten years ago I was let go from my job and the stress was so intense that I couldn’t write a word. I fell asleep every day at about 7 o’clock.

Have you ever run across that one project that you just can't finish for whatever reason? Or perhaps you had to really force yourself to finish because one thing wasn't working but you liked the concept in general?

I have a novelette I started two years ago, finished last year, but for some reason it just isn’t ready to be published. I don’t know what’s keeping me from pulling the trigger on it, but I just can’t.

Do you need inspiration to write or can you simply sit down and begin to write?

Both. I can push myself into an idea, but most times something just hits my fancy the right way and I note it.

You actually wrote a book about self publishing. What sort of feedback have you gotten from authors following your advice?

I actually have done workshops on self-publishing. Authors have been pretty receptive. Quite a few didn’t know about Smashwords or the free promotions Amazon offers for exclusivity. I ran into a woman who came to one of my workshops and she was asking when I would be doing another. 

The business end of writing and what it takes to market a book (and ones self) can be quite an eye opener for those starting out. What do you feel is the most important thing for people to keep in mind when starting out?

Don’t be discouraged and don’t expect to sell books (right away).

Would you ever work on a project outside of the genres you feel comfortable with?

Actually, I’m looking forward to doing that. I have a couple sci-fi ideas I’m kicking around in my head.

Which of your books would you most like to see made into a movie?

Hmm. Probably Vamp-Hire. My heroes aren’t typically ‘hero-ey’ so they wouldn’t all have that big-screen appeal. Nick is a loser’s loser at the beginning of the story and has a huge upswing by the end.

You have a few short story anthologies out. Which are you more comfortable writing, short stories or full novels?

I’m comfortable with either, really. Short stories are a pleasure because they’re easier to write. Fewer working parts and the pay-off is a lot more immediate and can sometimes be more powerful because the best ones stick to the reader.

I'm sure you love all your books, but which gave you the most satisfaction after completion?

The Ghost Toucher. I had never learned to plot and whenever I tried to work on a novel I’d write myself into a corner and quit. I just picked up a notebook one day and took about two weeks to write a plot—probably not in any proper manner, but in a way I understood—and used that as the skeleton to write the book.

On a second or third read, did you ever come across a subtext that you hadn't realized was there before?

I have a bad memory. I probably have and just don’t recall. I have thought of new directions for a continuing story to go on second and third reads.

What authors have inspired you early in your career and now?

Easy. F. Paul Wilson and Stephen King. I learned the basis for my writing style from Wilson and King is King. I saw "Creepshow" when I was in kindergarten and the first adult book I read was Eyes of the Dragon back when I was in seventh grade.

You seem to write primarily in the horror genre. What is it about that genre that attracts you?

Early exposure. Sure, I might have watched a lot through my fingers, but I was watching horror. Regular life is boring; I absolutely couldn’t write that and have nothing but respect for those who do.

When you come up with a plot is it born from your own fears or from a simple attempt to figure out what might give people the chills?

Both. I want people to freak out reading my stories but it’s also cathartic to put something that bothers me on paper and give it to the world.

The debate of which being more important, character or plot, comes up occasionally. I find that clichéd characters can ruin even the best story, but strong, interesting characters can often save a poor story. Where do you stand on the issue of which is more important (provided you think the importance of one outweighs that of the other)?

I think a plot, no matter how strong, is dead on the table without strong, supporting characters. Take The Ruins, for example. I thought the idea was awesome (saw the movie, not the book). I hated the characters, though and couldn’t care less when each of them died. I was actually rooting for the locals to kill them.

What's up next for you?

I’m about to start redrafting a zombie story with Santa Claus. Well, not Santa Claus, but a Santa. Then I’m either going to write a revenge ghost story or a novel describing the daily lives of Jason Voorhees/Freddy Krueger type mass killers. If that goes as well as I’d like it should be a series.

Where can people find out more about your work?

You can always find me on Twitter @Geraldrice, my websites www.razorlinepress.com and www.geralddeanrice.com, or my Facebook fan page. You can also visit my Amazon page www.amazon.com/Gerald-Dean-Rice/e/B0043GCYOM/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0

Ujaali Prologue

I've recorded myself reading the prologue to Ujaali. Hope you like it. 


Ujaali is available on Amazon in paperback and Kindle formats.

To Touch the Sun is also available on Amazon in both formats.

Ujaali Book Trailer

Well the new book trailer is here for Ujaali, the second book in the Chicago Vampire Series and I think it turned out pretty cool. Take a look.




The photos of Chicago are from a talented photographer named Matt Tuteur who has a great eye for this gorgeous city.

You can check out more of his work at his blog Matt Tuteur Street Photography.

A Simon Oneill Sighting

Here's an interview with my friend Simon Oneill, author of the Phantom Bigfoot Series, a paranormal fantasy series. Simon hales from Wales, the birth place of Dylan Thomas, Ken Follett and Gwyneth Lewis among many others.

When did the writing bug bite you? 

About 2000 my wife and I started writing screenplays. From there a film company asked us to create a paranormal TV show. Nothing happened but we were stuck with 22 paranormal episodes. So we are now converting them to novels. 

When did you take the step to serious publishing?

 2013 was when Phantom Bigfoot was born and from then joined Author's Social Media Support Group (#ASMSG) those guys are so awesome and they taught me how to self-publish. Haven’t looked back since.

Where did the title Phantom Bigfoot come from?

Where dreams are made, I guess. Just seemed the right phrase for a teenager altered by aliens to protect Bigfoot from hunters.

What is the plot of the book?

The Phantom Bigfoot Series follows teen superhero Duane as he strives to make a tribe of Bigfoot invisible to hunters and searchers and along the way he has crazy adventures and solves mysteries in the most ludicrous way possible. 

What was the inspiration for the plot?

My own skewed sense of humor and films like "Harry and the Hendersons".

When I was growing up in the 70s, I loved reading about creatures like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, etc. Does Wales have any Bigfoot-like legends?

They do now, Phantom Bigfoot was spotted shopping in a local supermarket, but it was only me, LOL. There have been news clips of wild men living on Brecon Beacons, a vast wilderness where SAS train. 

The famous still of a "Bigfoot"

Any special research into Bigfoot or similar legends?

I watched the usual news feeds on the Internet which never revealed more than a blurry image. The rest I invented as I went along.

What is your writing process like? Do you have a set pattern or ritual or do you write when the inspiration hits you? Any music that puts you in the mood?

I write when I can, not easy though as my time is gobbled up by looking after sick parents. The song that inspires Phantom Bigfoot is "These Bigfoot are made for Walking" by Nancy Sinatra. She follows me as she is an avid animal rights activist too. Thirty percent of all sales of Bigfoot books go to Cats Protection.

What do you do to market your books?

Muddle through Facebook, Twitter, join groups and event takeovers, make fans, but it isn’t easy getting my name out there.

Any public appearances?

I have had a few book signings, but it is so expensive to organize.

Do you enjoy the marketing process?

Not much, I’d rather be writing. If marketing actually worked then I would put more effort into it.

What do you like about writing and what do you dislike about it?

I love entering a special world of my own creation and for Phantom Bigfoot that’s the wild forest full of beautiful creatures who depend in him. Editing can be frustrating but is a necessary step to releasing a good book.

Who are some of your favorite authors? What is it about their writing that grabs you? Has any influenced your style of writing?

Stephen King and Graham Masterton are the two authors who have strongly influenced me. I often have a chat with Graham, wish I could say the same for Stephen. I live in the hope he might friend me one day, LOL. King has a way of drawing the reader into his terrifying world and loving every second of it. Masterton does the opposite, he makes the reader squirm and suffer every gory page. Love it!

How about television shows or movies? Do you have any particular favorites? 

Well, for TV I like "Dexter," "Walking Dead," "Poldark," "True Blood," "Star Trek," "DS9," "Star Gate: SG1." Among my favorite movies are "Some Like It Hot," "Butch and Sundance," "The Wild Bunch," "Jaws," "The Big Lebowski."

Are your books self published and if so, what are your thoughts on self publishing?

All selfies and self-publishing is so liberating as you can release your novel whenever not like with traditional publishers who might take at least two years to get your book out and by then it will not resemble your novel anyway.

Have you ever written anything that you might not have picked up during writing but after reading through it kind of surprised you? Perhaps a context that you didn’t expect?

I often reread during my wife’s editing process and say, “Did I actually write that? I can’t remember?”

Does anyone else in your family enjoy writing? 

My wife writes with me and edits all my work.

What advice would you give someone just starting out about the business of writing?

Don’t wait to get an agent or trad publishing, if the novel has been edited then get it out there and make sure you have a good following on Twitter and Facebook first.

Can you imagine your books being turned into a movie or perhaps a TV show?

No need to, my novel Flip Side about a gangster haunted by his father is in the hands of Hollywood and Magic Is Murder my horror comedy about witches and ghosts will be filmed next year. And it has an awesome link to TV series "Dexter."

Would you ever write outside the fantasy/horror genre? Perhaps even do nonfiction? 

Can’t see me doing that, but stranger things have happened.

What’s next on the horizon for you?

Hot In Bigelow; Sizzling will be released Nov. 7 and is my alien erotica version of Start Trek meets Some Like It Hot with an overload of Viagra.

What do you think you’d do if you ever actually came across a Bigfoot, phantom or otherwise?

Have a few beers with him.

Where can we find your work and more information about you?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/-/e/B00SN9TNAI 

http://twitter.com/simoneillauthor

http://facebook.com/simononeillauthor

Thanks for stopping by, Simon. Say hello to the big guy for us.