Oscar's New Criteria For Consideration

Just recently, the Academy who gives away sizeable figurines of a naked man with a big............... sledgehammer to anyone who completes production of a movie before the submission deadline released a list of the new standards to be met for their approval.  They are as follows:

And, here is their mission statement:

  

Ok, I can understand the notion of giving people chances who had very little chances before.  Nobody should be denied work experience because of immutable characteristics of themselves.  We should all be encouraging every creative person follow their passions and reach their full potential. However, I'm not so sure that imposing this criteria is the best approach.  As a for instance, I present a tweet from one Justine Bateman.

Many of you might remember her as Mallory Keaton from Family Ties.  These days, she's got a nice career as a film director going for her.  Here's her response to the Academy:

Ok then.  It looks like this film director, who happens to fall under the approved criterium of being a woman, finds the Academy's initiative more insulting than empowering.  My guess is that she would prefer to have her films honoured for their quality and not simply because her identity helped her appear on some diversity checklist.  Are there other industry professionals who feel this way?  Let me know in the comment section below if you so desire. 

Anyone who has followed my blogs or social media feeds for any length of time knows full well that I HAAAAAAAAAATE these kinds of things being imposed on creative people. One of the biggest problems with the entertainment industry (especially mainstream establishments like Hollywood) is that there are more executives and lobby representatives making decisions than there are creative people, whether the production is for theatres, TV, streaming services or otherwise.  It's been like that for decades too long.  Currently in many creative industries, there is actually a position called a "Sensitivity Reader". It is apparently their job to look for anything that anybody anywhere would find offensive or disturbing and insist that the content be removed.  OOOOOOOOOH HO HO HO HOOOOOOOO would I love for one of these people to give a read to either one of the comic books I've published (still very much available on Amazon here and here by the by). They'd innocently start with, "Okay I can see right here where lots of people will be upset..." and my response will be "GOOD!! FUCK 'EM!!" 

"...but they could feel attacked by such dialogue..."

"GOOD!! FUCK 'EM!!"

"...but they could maybe..."

"GOOD!! FUCK 'EM!!"

And that's how it would go until that person quits in disgust and that job position itself is abolished forever.

In 1934, some horrible place called the Hays Office imposed a code on Hollywood movies dictating all the stuff they would NOT allow into movies. In the late 1960's, that code morphed into the rating system of G, PG, etc...  Any movies made before that imposition in 1934 are considered "pre code" movies.  I am looking forward to a "Post Code Hollywood". This will be a utopia where a creative person or a group of creative persons come up with an idea for a movie........ and then proceed to make that movie which is then shown to anyone who wants to see it.  There will be no obnoxious meddlers in the middle of that process inflicting all sorts of demands for censorship based merely on stifling agendas and insatiable egos.  It'll be an uncomplicated world where people tell stories and other people enjoy stories. My God! It'll be beautiful.

Oh but hey!!  This environment of certain anarchy would lead to all sorts of immoral debauchery such as the recent Netflix offering Cuties!!  

HEY HEY!! Whoa there, forthcoming backlash!  No it would not! If something is illegal to do for real in real life then it's illegal to do in a movie.  Yes, murder is illegal, but of course people you see "murdered" in movies aren't actually murdered.  It's all acting, forced perspective, possibly some amounts of red corn syrup (or chocolate syrup) in order to simulate someone being murdered.  The underage girls in Cuties were actually made to do some erotic dancing with the camera getting close ups of their bodies thus they were actually exploited.  

Thus, regular law enforcement would and should get involved in this case.  If police, FBI, or any other actual law enforcement organization need not be involved in the patrolling of a show's production, then no other body should be there either. NOBODY should have any authority over a production except the artists involved.  That's it.  Everyone else should just leave the set, the writing room, the editing room, etc.  If there are any "grass roots" vigilante-type groups that are upset at a show's existence, the proper response to such sentiment is of course "GOOD!! FUCK 'EM!!!" Are we clear on this? Alright!

Ok, now that I've expressed my displeasure about the Academy's new criteria, I'll now give my full assessment of it.  I think that it's................ not that big a deal.  There's no way they're going to retract this now so it looks like it's going to be a part of their organization for a long time.  So, there's no point in trying to do away with it.  What's done is done.  Besides that, I don't think it's nearly as insidious as some people have made it out to be.  I say this for a number of reasons:

1. Keep in mind that this is merely criteria for movies to be "selected for Oscar consideration" not for movies to be made.  Movies like Dude, Where's My Army Tank? or Pauley Shore Joins a Nunnery or any other movie that has absolutely no chance of being looked at by the Academy would need not bother trying to meet this criteria.  Only those that give a shit about winning that golden nudist would have to adhere to any of that.  Besides, I see a loophole that can be used by any all white cis able-bodied male creative group in Hollywood that can't afford to hire new staff or let go of any current staff.

There you go.  To meet the new criteria, just break one of your bro's legs and/or blow an airhorn right in his ear.  You'll fulfill the requirements without any changes in staff.

"Ok then. Our group's diversity has been achieved.  Let's get back to work, honkies!"

2. This is hardly the first time the Oscars have been affected by politics.  One such time was back around 1947.  That was the start of Senator Joe McCarthy seeing up his House Unamerican Activities Committee to blacklist any communist subversives in the USA.  Hollywood was of course one of the hardest hit institutions.  Whether there were communist subversives skulking around is moot.McCarthy's approach was a breach of human rights. Because of this, many professionals in Hollywood felt the icy grip of the HUAC and so were unable to participate in the Oscar ceremony.  The categories for every award was thereby tainted. Rather than for instance "Best Actor" it was more like "Best Actor who managed to avoid being blacklisted............ for now".  So you can see, they were awarded less on merit and more on politics which slanted the Oscars for that year and years to follow during that red scare.

3. This revelation is based on a snarky tweet I saw when this was announced.  I can't for the life of me find it and I'd rather not waste several man-hours trying.  It said something like, "Oh! So now only films from Korea will win Oscars since they certainly won't have too many white people on their creative teams".

I looked at that tweet and thought........ y'know what? I really LIKE this new development.  I would love it if the next winners of Best Picture did go to movies from countries where white people are a minority or virtually nonexistent. I'd love for countries like Korea, Nigeria, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Mongolia, Jordan, or any other place with a similar population type to be dominating the Oscars for years to come.  For too long Hollywood has been too favoured.  For decades it's always been the same sacks full of hubris running the same bloated studios who compete in a creatively-inbred jamboree patting each other on the same backs they'll stab minutes later all the while bending over just to see if the sun does still shine out of their lipo-suctioned asses.  All too often, any film from outside of Hollywood are thrown the smallest bone with a "Best Foreign Picture" nomination and/or win.  Well, now it looks like they'll be getting all of the meaty bones while the fading Hollywood moguls will have to beg for table scraps.

This development is not just great for knocking big shots off their pedestals, it will also revive the joy of making movies again.  The entire world has felt intimidated by Hollywood's bombast making it look like they're the ONLY place to make movies in the world.  Every other filmmaker everywhere else had to just be content with making small unassuming little films that only managed to entertain their own country's population.  But now things are different.  These "little sprout" artists have been given a chance to grow into "jolly green giants" of the film industry while all the Hollywood dinosaurs can only sit back and watch it happen.

I guess I should end this blogpost with one all encompassing statement about this new list.  I'll just say that I personally am not entirely supportive of such a thing, since it's something way out of my control I can always find a bright side.  I leave you now with a short film that DOES indeed meet this list's criteria since a good 90% or more of the cast is hispanic AND it did even win an Oscar.  Enjoy!

My Plea For Inducting The Monkees Into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Already

I do think it is around that time of year when the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame will be deciding who to put on their roster of potential inductees for this year.   The Monkees have certainly been eligible for the longest time now and there have been many many pleas from fans for their induction already.  Yet, somehow, they never seem to get on that list.
The criteria for eligibility into the Hall of Fame is right there on the website:

The Monkees easily meet that.

Their debut release was the song Last Train to Clarksville which came out in August of 1966.  That's well before the 25 year mark. They also certainly contributed to the development and evolution of rock & roll. The most obvious contribution they made was the music video.   The 'Monkee Romps' in the TV episodes were the forerunners of music videos that would later be showcased on MTV.  Also, much more directly than that, Mike Nesmith himself was very influential as a producer in the late 1970's and early 1980's helping shape the look and feel of the music video as we know it today.  Heck, the Monkees even won an Emmy Award for these innovative editing techniques.  If the Emmys can recognize this achievement, what's taking the Hall of Fame so long?

Apparently, for any band to be eligible for induction, all 600 members of the Hall of Fame have to agree on a band's (or artist's) greatness and importance.  So even if 599 members all want a band inducted but 1 member says NO NO NO, then the whole process is at a stalemate and induction doesn't happen. I think that might be the case here.
One such theory that I've heard as to their delay is that there is a fear that inducting the Monkees could lead to the induction of boy bands such as New Kids on the Block, Backstreet Boys, or even One Direction.  This fear is most likely brought on by the way the Monkees were assembled. Rather than forming organically as say the Beatles or the Rolling Stones as a group of friends enthusiastic enough about music to start a band, instead a producer named Don Kirshner auditioned 75 young men and eventually settled on 4 to make the band.  Don Kirshner's original vision was to have a fake band for a TV show where 4 handsome young boys were the faces while a real band worked behind the scenes writing and performing all of the songs. (The song writing team in this case being Boyce & Hart by the way.)  That right there is the manufactured element of The Monkees that people objected to which pigeon-holes them into the 'boy band' category.

However, the 4 lads, Micky, Mikey, Peter, and Davey almost immediately rebelled against this set up.  Mike Nesmith himself had big ambitions of being a singer/song writer. He was not about to just settle into a state of following orders while some other song writing team had all the fun.  So, they all got Don Kirshner completely annexed from his own project while they took more of the reigns of the creative aspect of the show and the songs.  Both Mike Nesmith and Peter Tork would constantly be composing songs for the Monkees to perform and quite a few of them did end up on the show and on their performing roster.
Now, I'd say that open rebellion against corporate forces keeping you down is a verifiable demonstration of the spirit of rock & roll.  It's a pity that the Hall of Fame doesn't see it that way.  Oh, in fact, I found something on the Hall of Fame's website that perked my interest a little:

Ok, so the Hall of Fame decry the Monkees as a "corporate and manufactured band" but then turn right around and induct the one element that made them look corporate and manufactured.  How did that happen?

Hey, Hall of Fame, why don't you induct the lightning storm that brought down Buddy Holly's plane while you're at it?

Or how about inducting the ham sandwich that Mama Cass choked on?

How about that Hell's Angel that killed someone at Altamonte?  I think that would fit.

Why not induct Elvis Presley's bowel obstruction?

Or what the heck? Let's induct Mark David Chapman already.  There can be a nice display with his dirty shoes under glass, the same dirty shoes he was wearing while squatting in the bushes in front of John Lennon's apartment waiting for him to return from his daily errands.

Or, hey, how about inducting the Mensa genius who told Cher that using auto-tune for her Life After Love song would work well.

DURR! CHER SOUND GOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!

No! No she did not!

Ok Ok! Maybe Don Kirshner is not as bad as all of that.  I may have gotten a little carried away with hyperbole (something I never normally do [wink emoji] ).  I'm sure Don has enough accomplishments to his name that his induction is indeed warranted.  Here's his mini-bio:

So that checks out.  But I still consider it both a slap in the face and a quick toss under the bus to give this much attention to Mr. Kirshnir but then completely dismiss and ignore the guys who made the Monkees as successful as they were.

I'll end this post and plea by embedding on of their songs: You Just Might Be The One.  It's not one of their more popular or prestigious songs for sure.  The reason I chose it is because it is one of the songs where the 4 guys, Mickey Dolenz, Mike Nesmith, Peter Tork, and Davey Jones are the only musicians playing on it.  The evidence I am providing can be found in this Monkees box set that I have:

Here are the liner notes for that song from the little booklet inside:

So there's you have it.  That's my piece on why The Monkees MORE than deserve their Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction.  Now here's that song:

Is Kilroy Worth It?

I just recently got back from a vacation in the Philippines so I just now caught the tail end of the craziness surrounding the Kilroy Event.  I'm feeling a weird mixed bag of emotions about it and I'm not entirely sure what to say.  But, being someone who paid the $250 for the 'ultimate package' and making not just one but two blog posts promoting it, I guess I'm somewhat obliged to say something.

I'm not going to 'brutally attack' anyone for their opinions of the event. Everyone has their own reasons for feeling that way.  Tim Pool's experience is quite an eye-opener though.

Yeah, those contracts Tim talks about seem rather puzzling to me.
 They kind of have that 'insecure girlfriend/boyfriend' vibe to them in a way.  Just like the gf that insists "I SAW YOU CHECKING OUT HER BUTT!!!" or the bf that shouts "OOOOOOOH!!! SO YOU AND JIMMY ARE JUUUUUUUUST FRIENDS!!! REALLY???!!!", these contracts seem to be insisting, "YOU'D BETTER DAMN FUCKING WELL TAKE THIS CONFERENCE SERIOUSLY WITH NO BACKING OUT OVER SOME 'SCHEDULE CONFLICT' BULLSHIT!!!"  That's my interpretation anyway.

I'm also not too thrilled with the stifling of guests' speeches that lean more to the 'alt-right' or whatever term they prefer.  Maybe the organizers want to cut down on the inevitable Antifa violence, but that's not a good way to go about it.  Free speech means free speech for all and it should definitely remain that way for a Free Speech convention.  Like it's been said elsewhere, sunlight is the best disinfectant.  All views need to be put out into the world so that they can be challenged with debate and such.  Stifling any ideas is unconstitutional, undemocratic, and highly dangerous.  Those bad ideas will just fester underground which could manifest themselves in very destructive ways.
I know good ol' Dickie Spencer has expressed interest in speaking at this event.  I know he's, shall we say, the opposite of popular with many people.  But I think I thought of a solution that could please everyone, even the most adamant Antifa thugs.  Two words: dunk tank!  Let Dickie spout his views from the security of a dunk tank where nobody can physically hurt him, yet at the same time everyone has a great opportunity to release their outrage with him.  I see the price going as follows:

Ask Dickie a question: $2
Get 3 Balls to Throw at the Target: $3 (so $1 per ball)
1 question and 3 balls: $5

See, that could be fun for everyone.

But, in fairness, I'll let one of the event's organizers, whose youtube name is "Based Mama", tell it in her own words in her video embedded below.



So there we go. I went all "Trump on Charlottesville" there and presented both sides.  I'll let everyone reading this decide for themselves who's "Ghandii" and who's "Hitler" in this scenario.  My biggest concern about this event mostly involves me and the decisions I make for this day forward.

This blog post I'm making is meant to answer the question in the title: is the Kilroy Event still worth attending?

Like I said at the top, I paid the big $250 to help get this event going. However, I still have yet to book a flight and a hotel room in Phoenix, so my commitment isn't entirely 100% yet.  I figured I would deal with this event after my Philippines vacation first.  But now that that's happened, I can wrestle with this Kilroy situation more.

So, the question remains, do I think it's worth it to attend Kilroy and will I be going?  The answer to both questions is: YES!

I know lots of big speakers who were scheduled to be there have pulled out which looks very bad. However, I still think it will be a rather sizeable event with many people in attendance.  That's still an ideal environment for the self-promotion intentions I have going into this conference in the first place.  I can still schmooze with people and promote my book whenever and wherever possible.

Also, Andy Warski announced on his channel that even though he very angrily pulled out of Kilroy, he still intends to be in Phoenix to organize a pub crawl of sorts.  He'll do that to benefit anyone who paid good money to see him speak there.  I would gladly attend both Kilroy and that pub crawl.  That's just as good a place to promote my book as any. In fact it might even be a better venue for that.  So that's another good reason to be in Phoenix on April 21 & 22.

Another good reason for me to stay optimistic is that there is still time to turn this around. It's still just a few months away. There's plenty of time and opportunity for others to get involved and help make it a success.  Remember, this was inspired by the censorious nature of other conventions like the one experienced at VicCon last June.  Kilroy is supposed to be a huge piece of artillery against this climate of censorship.  Don't let our stealth bomber deteriorate into a slingshot.  Don't just sit back and watch it burn, dig your heels in and do something.  Just because they've "lost Faith", it doesn't mean we have to.

You saw what I did there I'm sure.  Should I have done that?  Well, it's too late now.

So anyway, that's my assessment of the whole Kilroy situation.  Whether you plan on attending, or just want to heckle and meme from the sidelines, it's all cool.  Whatever happens, it will be an exciting weekend destined for the history books.

See you Keks there or whatever.

Statues Coming Down

Well, it's happening.  After the violent clashes at the 'culturally carcinogenic' events in Charlottesville, people all over have been either demanding that statues be taken down or have physically taken them down themselves.  Of course, since that Charlottesville rally was originally set up to stop a statue of General Robert E. Lee from being torn down, the biggest target of these people has been the many Confederate statues that stand all over America (especially in the southern states of course).

My overall opinion of this movement to take down these statues is that I'm................. torn.  Yes, I know. You'd think that a free speech advocate such as myself would be 100% against these statues coming down.  I'm basing this point of view on looking at a bigger picture.

For instance, when the communist system in Russia was dismantled in 1989, so were many statues of Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, and other icons of the USSR.  Lenin's dead body was moved from the glass coffin used to put him on display into a proper grave where he can be buried among the rest of the 'proletariat'.  This was done to signify that Russia was no longer under the communist system of those men.

Another big picture example I'll bring up is the big invasion of Iraq back in 2003.  The big signifier that their 'mission had been accomplished' was that a huge statue of Saddam Hussein had been brought down.  The same people fighting the hardest to preserve confederate states today, back then had no problem seeing that statue go.  There was no cry of "but what about Sunni history?" or "wouldn't Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay be traumatized seeing this image of their father being destroyed?"  Just like in Russia, the statue coming down signified that Iraq was no longer under Saddam's iron-fisted rule.

If it were up to me, I would not even demolish those statues just for the sake of preserving the principles of free speech, free expression, and preserving history.  However, what's done is done.

I was not present at the induction ceremonies for any of the Confederate statues, so I have no idea what the true intentions were in erecting them in the first place.  Maybe some were put up as a desperate attempt for 'proud southerners' to show everyone just who rules that respective county they're in.  But some might also have been put up as a way for Americans to never forget any aspect of their history, good or bad.  
There's also the matter of freedom of expression for the original artists who made those statues.  However, many of the artists I'm sure were simply commissioned to make these.  They may not have had any sentimental attachment to figures like Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson.  Their sole intent was simply to make some quick money by creating monuments of other people's heroes.  So, for that reason, maybe the artists would feel indifferent to their statues coming down.  Their attitude might just be "I made my money and people saw me display my talents so ti's all good."

I should also mention that I do not have any affection for the alt-right in any way.  One of them called me a "race traitor" for having a Filipina wife.

So, as you can see, I couldn't care less about the hurt feelings of these 'hoodless klansmen' as they watch their heroes come tumbling down.

One big aspect of this movement that i strongly do NOT care for is the mob justice that's tearing down these statues.  That is never a positive trend.

One of the writers for The Simpsons once said that "the town of Springfield is constantly under mob rule".  As most people should know, pretty much every episode of The Simpsons is a satirical allegory of our world and all of the ridiculous people in it that make it so ridiculous.  If you've ever watched an episode seeing the residents of Springfield make complete asses of themselves in a crazed riot and thought "BWA HA HA HA HA HA! I'm glad that I'm not that stupid", then you should be just as appalled by the mobs tearing down and/or vandalizing statues right now.

As a free speech/free expression advocate and an artist with two self-published comic books, I do feel that creativity is healthier and is much more productive than destruction any day.  I say we should follow the example of whoever put that little girl statue in front of the Bull of Wallstreet statue.  Rather than tearing down these statues, there should be other statues added beside them.  Perhaps the descendants of the late Alex Haley could commission many statues of Kunta Kinte breaking his chains in front of every single Confederate statue in the country.  There could also be a statue of Harriet Tubman behind each one as well, singing her songs to guide the slaves to freedom out of the sight of the confederacy.  That is a more positive movement I could get behind.  Just a suggestion.

I'll end this post with a bit about a statue that has been stirring up a similar controversy in Canada: the statue of British General Edward Cornwallis.  This statue that stands in Halifax has been protested and vandalized many many times, most adamantly by the Miqmaq Indian tribe.  Well, he does have a rather brutal history with the Miqmaq for sure.  Back in his day (the 1750's), the French were paying the Miqmaq Indians for every British scalp they could get.  Cornwallis didn't care for this turn of events of course.  However, his solution to this was the completely exterminate every single Miqmaq Indian there was, and he wasted no time in doing so.
But, at the same time, Halifax has to honour him because he is the man who founded that city.  It was his leadership that made Halifax the thriving heart of the maritimes that it still is today.  So, to balance the good and bad parts of this man's history, city officials have said "this statue simply honours the work he did to make Halifax what it is. We do not honour the full man."

So there you have it. I have presented many different arguments for tearing down, building up, and/or preserving statues.  Do with this espousal of postulation what you will.

I Finally Saw the Estrogen-Fueled Ghostbusters...

...and yes I will be offering my analysis of the movie waaaaaaaaaaaaaay later than everyone else.  Ya ya ya, I know pretty much the entire world has forgotten about this movie and are all focussed on Star Wars VII Rogue One at the moment, but since I gave my analysis of the trailer when it came out I feel obligated to give my 2 cents about it as well.  Plus, I wanted to wait until I actually saw this movie before I said anything about it's quality because that's the fair thing to do.  I finally got the opportunity to view it while on the plane trip to the Philippines to marry my fiancee, so now my critique should have that much more integrity because of that (that is how blogging works, right?)

OK folks, here it is.  I'm about to give my overall opinion of this movie.  Will it be favourable or not?  Will my thumb be up or down?  Will I make an enthusiastic 'yay' or a very crestfallen 'nay'?  Will the egos of Paul Feig, Kristin Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones (and anyone else who worked on this film in some way) be stroked like a kitten that's a symbol of an erection or OBLITERATEEEEEEEEEEED  like a kitten in a war zone (also a symbol for an erection).  It could go either way at this point.  I could shine my light of positivity or I could cast my shadow of negativity.  The very tone of my analysis of this movie (as well as the tone for the rest of this blog post) all rests on the very opinion I'm about to speak.  It's taken 5 months to make it to this moment and now here it is.

My official opinion of Ghostbusters 2016 with four female leading characters is...........................

a satisfactory 'meh'

It wasn't close to anything great, at many times it wasn't even good, but it was also not the pile of festering garbage that too many people made it out to be either.  In that airplane seat, I clicked that watch button expecting to cringe like it was 'A Rusty Old Rake Being Scraped Against a Chalkboard In a Room Well Below Freezing - The Movie'!  I anticipated my brain climbing out of my head, grabbing the flotation device from under my seat and then jumping out the window with it at some point after the first 5 or 10 or 15 minutes.  But thankfully none of that happened.  To my surprise and delight, I found this movie to be a relatively nice way to spend 2 hours.

Truly, the mind-numbingly stupidest aspect of this movie was all of the hype around it fuelled by the perpetually offended and egged on by the film's director.  I think the Nostalgia Critic satirized that the best in his review so I would like to embed that below right now.



I personally prefer to focus on the movie itself and all of its merits.  That's all I'm interested in anyway.  I don't give two tosses what the SJW or MRA crybabies think.

First I'll talk about all of the good that I saw in this movie.  In my assessment of the trailer, I anticipated that the four women starring in this movie would pull off enjoyable performances and in my opinion that was indeed the case.  The standout performance for me was Kate McKinnon.  She was fun to watch in every scene she was in, whether she was moving all over or just standing there in the background.  I could watch her all day.  My favourite performance of hers was when she was working on one of her ghost-catching contraptions while dancing to El Debarge's song Rhythm of the Night.  That was fun to watch.  Like many people, I was left rather puzzled by a few of the jokes in the trailer involving Kate such as that 'wig surprise' scene and her licking the guns before shooting them.  But, like my attitude was for the whole movie, I didn't want to officially label them as awful until I saw the full context for those jokes.  Now that I have I can see that those jokes do make more sense.  Kate character Holtzman is a rather socially awkward mechanical genius who does weird things and makes weird gestures on a spur of the moment without giving even one care about whose eyebrows were furrowed together.  Upon learning that aspect of her character, those jokes weren't so puzzling anymore and I was satisfied.
Both Kristen and Melissa did their usual brilliance.  I'm sure none of this material was in any way a challenge for them so wasn't blown away by them at all.  They simply showed up, took their roles seriously and held up their end of the movie.  A job well done.  I also enjoyed Leslie Jones performance.  She was essentially being herself, but she is such an overwhelming presence that she couldn't (and shouldn't) possibly hide it.  More than an actress, she is one that gives a definitive persona like John Wayne or Mr T.  She's one of the lucky few that can make a living just showing up and being herself.  For that I applaud her.
Since I'm talking about Leslie, I would like to take this time to address my take on the craziness that happened with her and Milo Yiannopolis on Twitter.  In my opinion, both of these people are total badasses who deserve all of the respect.  At the same time, I also feel that both behaved rather shabbily during that whole twitter debacle.  Also at the same time, neither of them deserved even a minute fraction of the hate and/or punishment they received because of it.  For Leslie, I can understand that being compared to a gorilla is not a pleasant experience whether it has racial connotations or not.  But at the same time she should know that the internet is full of roguish goblins who use anonymity as a cloak to carry out nasty deeds onto unsuspecting mortals.  No matter what words or images were presented, it's important not to give in by getting upset.  That's what they want and that's how they claim victory.
As for Milo, his mistake was starting his trolling at a less than ideal time.  He jumped in and tweeted at Leslie right at the peak of all of the shitposting and therefore Jones was at the peak of her emotions running high.  If he had realized this and maybe come back at a less hectic time, the situation would not have escalated as much as it did and maybe he would still have his twitter account.  Yes, @jack absolutely overstepped his bounds when he banned Milo from twitter over this.  And at the same time, Leslie did not and DOES NOT deserve any of the hate brought upon her for this situation.  When emotions run high and out of control, people say all sorts of crazy things they don't mean.

I'd also like to address all of the people who attacked Jones on twitter in the first place.  Yes, I know you were upset about this female Ghostbusters and you have every right to be.  You also do indeed have every right to express that anger.  However, simply harassing Leslie Jones is not a practical solution.  She was just one actress in that movie.  Concentrating all of your energies on her is like using all your knights, rooks, bishops, and queen to take out one little pawn in chess.

Really, following the advice of "don't like it - don't watch it" is the best thing you can do.  That's the sort of action that caused the movie to not make nearly as much money as it wanted to.  I don't even think they've covered their costs yet.  That gets more results that online harassment campaigns ever could.

Oh wait, that's all part of that stupid hype I said I wasn't going to talk about.  Enough about that.  Now I'll get back to the movie's merits or lack of merits from this point on.

The overall story does in no way come close to the fun and excitement of the original.  It's not horrible but it's mores just bland and forgettable.  For one I felt no urgency when the villain was revealed.  Maybe it's because the actor who played him was boring or his part wasn't written all that well.  I just felt nothing for him.  I felt no sympathy when he talked about his hard life nor was I ever fearful of his villainy.  He was just kind of there and then he was gone after he was defeated and I didn't care one bit which is not a positive aspect of an antagonist.
I'd also like to say something at this time about the movie's director Paul Feig.  He's good at what he does, but based on this and other movies he's made, he seems to have a fiery hot intense anger towards his own penis.  I think he might even want to murder it and I suspect he might attempt it someday.  Did he witness his penis torturing a puppy at some point?  I don't know.  Whatever is going on, I think Mr. Feig and his penis need to sit down on a soft padded couch and have a nice long talk to work out their differences before he makes any more movies.  That would do a great service to Hollywood, his friends, his relatives, his co-workers, the general public, and mostly his penis because it won't get murdered.

I am indeed aware that many feminists have elevated this movie to loftier heights than it deserves and that is inspires others to direct heaps of vitriol towards it.  In essence this movie is the Lisa Lionhearted doll.

 The feminists who wanted this movie to be made and actually paid money to see it, didn't even care if it was successful or even if it was crafted well in any way.  All they wanted was something to make them feel good about their ideology and give them the illusion that they're "inspiring little girls everywhere".  (Most of these people of course completely forgot about those strong women characters in that Mad Max movie from last year.) Because they believe that hard enough, that is essentially what they got.  I say let them have it.  The more time they spend watching this movie on Netflix or Blueray or wherever, the less time they'll spend online complaining about how everything we say or do or create is "sexist" or "problematic" or any other buzz words they'll mash together to trick themselves into thinking they've said something profound.  We should make more of these "feminist-niche" movies to distract them.  They could take the Y chromosome out of other masculine movie franchises like maybe have a female Rambo or an all female version of the Godfather (the Godmother possibly?).  How about a feminized version of Die Hard?  Could you imagine Lena Dunham shooting up a building full of terrorists shouting "YIPPEE KAI YAY, FATHERFUCKERS!!!"?

If you found that last paragraph an "insult to women" that's because it kind of was.  For real, making 'girl versions of supposedly guy things' is not an effective way to elevate women in the movie industry, quite the opposite in fact.  By making these, women are basically saying "we wish we could do what the guys are doing".  Instead, you need to make movies that guys wish they could make.  Sigourney Weaver's character Ripley in the movie Aliens is a good example.  More like that need to be made.  And of course, in the case of Aliens, both men and women worked on that movie in front of and behind the camera.  Therefore, it's not just a 'guy movie' or a 'girl movie' it is simply 'a movie' to be enjoyed by all.
I guess that right there is what you need, just have both men and women involved in quality products.  The best way to do that is to let both men and women succeed and/or fail based on their own merits without being at all judgemental.

I think that's all I need to say about this movie.  If you enjoyed it, good for you.  Keep enjoying it at your leisure.  If you didn't enjoy it or still refuse to see it, that's fine too.  Just simply continue to not see it and resist giving this movie more free publicity by complaining about it.  That way everybody is happy (except for the people who lost money on it, but I'm sure they'll recoup their losses eventually).  Plus the classic original Ghostbusters still exists for all to enjoy.  I suggest you revisit Venkman and Egon and Slimer and the rest of the gang to keep you feeling that all is right with the world.

Everybody happy? Alright!