Table-Flip Tuesday: Andrew’s “Do-Not-Be’s”

such rage, much fury

such rage, much fury

I thought I’d take a break from the four-page-long thesis-style format I’ve established for “Table-Flip Tuesdays” up to this point; instead, what I have for you lovely geeks, this go-round, is a list I have compiled, which I just decided to start referring to as my “Do-Not-Be’s”.

Spoiler alert: this is a list of traits, characteristics, and just plain people I feel you, well, should not be. Why? Because these traits, characteristics, and just plain people irritate the crap out of me. (Hence the “Table-Flip Tuesday” outlet.)

Pay close attention. Take note, if needs be. And, above all else, if you find that you happen to be one of these things listed below: Don’t.

[Note: For sake of consistency, “that guy who…” will be in reference to everybody and anybody. It’s not sexist exclusion; even if you’re a female who fits one of these points, you’re still “that guy who…”]

DO NOT BE…

… that guy who says “Can I ask you a question?”

… that guy who fast-forwards/skips the opening title sequence of Doctor Who.

… that guy who thinks I’ll be impressed by the figurines of nearly-nude versions of female superheroes you have, lining the walls of your house.

… that guy who hums/whistles along to a song in your head, while another song is playing over public speakers, at the same time.

… that guy who comments on my Vines, but never likes them.

… that guy who pronounces it “heighdth”.

… that guy who uses the “shave-and-a-haircut” cadence when knocking on a stranger’s door.

… that guy whose Twitter profile is set to automatically follow another user, based on a recent like, only to unfollow said other user until the next time said other user likes another post.

… that guy who’s the opposite of Batman.

… that guy who was okay with the Dexter series finale.

… that guy who intends to heat dinosaur-shaped chicken nuggets in the oven, only to get drunk after putting said dinosaur-shaped chicken nuggets in said oven and then pass out, leaving it up to your roommate to come home to a smoke-hazed house, finding the culprit being said dinosaur-shaped chicken nuggets, which have now become dinosaur-shaped charcoal briquettes.

… that guy who vapes for the sole purpose of being able to say “I’m not smoking” when told the vapors are bother those around you.

… that guy who sticks out your tongue while using the dog-face SnapChat filter, even though it clearly instructs you to “Open Your Mouth”.

… that guy who constantly asks for favors and punctuates the query by saying, “No pressure.”

… that guy who holds up pedestrian traffic, just so you can practice your “jump-shot”.

… that guy who says, “I guess that means it’s free!” (followed, in most cases, by inane guffawing)

… that guy who goes to pick up someone from their place of apartmental residence and, instead of parking in an actual parking spot, sits in the thoroughfare, blocking the vehicles of the neighbors of said someone you are picking up from their place of apartmental residence.

… that guy who affects a terrible English accent while at work, forcing it not only upon your coworkers but also on the clientele.

… that guy who gives me crap about actually enjoying Man of Steel.

… that guy who leaves those annoying postcards advertising the latest and greatest new-age religious thing under people’s windshield wipers; or on any part of their vehicle, for that matter.

… Ted Mosby.

Alright! I think that’s a good list for now. Don’t think this is a finite listing – oh, no! This is just a healthy smattering of those irritating traits, characteristics, and just plain people who irritate the crap out of me; some on a daily basis, while others on a purely, sadistic nostalgic front. In time, just you wait, there just might be a “Part II” of this list. Until then, however…

#tableflipped

Ep.89 – The Call-in Special/Cheaters Never Prosper: What is Cheating Anyway?

MHMG Call-In


http://traffic.libsyn.com/matinghabitsofthemoderngeek/Ep89_MHMG.mp3

Get comfortable because this is a long one. Andrew Bartlett and Sean Ryan help me navigate all the technical difficulties of our first-ever call-in show!

We catch up on the Haps, answer an email from one of our favorite listeners, and discuss matters of deception – cheating!

I talk for a very long time with Kenny Rotter of Dumbbells and Dragons about his views on the subject of cheating, and we all get to chat with Official PodPal Robbie Polanco, and the mastermind behind the Twitter handle @KelleyFactCheck or “Lies Mating Habits Told me.” Sean Ryan claims to have had a call from Sean Lynch of Nerd Church fame, but Andrew and I didn’t hear it… so I don’t think it actually happened 😉

Tables get flipped over over-dramatic fan reactions (MILD SPOILERS FOR GAME OF THRONES AND ARROW), folks who don’t know who they’re talking to, and stolen Slim Jims.

Thanks to everyone who called in and talked with us!

demotivational-poster-cheating

unnamed

Ep.88 – #doghouse: Staying Out of Trouble on Social Media.

MHMG_SM

http://traffic.libsyn.com/matinghabitsofthemoderngeek/Ep88_MHMG.mp3

Em is back on American soil and helps me talk through some dos and don’ts when it comes to dating and exposing your social media presence. The internet is forever, and what you post may have an effect on how you’re perceived publicly.

We also talk about Em’s recent trip to Scotland, books, Game of Thrones, and Doctor Strange.

We pick our top three survival buddies from popular media, and flip tables over voicemails and TSA. Enjoy!

relationshipkillers

Table-Flip Tuesday: The Donna Noble Stigma

such rage, much fury

such rage, much fury

Author’s Note: This one’s for the Whovians.

Arthur’s Note: To any teechurs who have Arthur in there class today, Arthur has an upset stumack and is to not do any homewerk for about a week becuz of his upset stumack. Thank you, Arthur’s mum

Never ask me to list the modern Doctor Who companions in a “favorite-to-least-favorite” ranking. I only say this because when I put Martha Jones in that last slot, it’s automatically assumed that I hate her, I’m a racist, and I think she should be thrown into the Medusa Cascade after having sat through a ten-and-a-half-hour Judoon poetry session.

None of this is true, of course, as despite where I would rank Martha, I honestly feel that she was a brilliant companion and got shit done. However, when up against the others – Rose, Donna, Amy, Rory, and Clara – Martha is left having drawn the shortest of straws; with a three-way tie for first between Rose, Amy, and Clara. (Hm… should’ve chose my wording better… I’m gonna need a minute…)

But why am I talking companions? Well, being a Whovian – as I very specifically stated this specific table-flip was directed toward – you would already know that this past Saturday [23 April 2016, for you archaeologists reading this from the future] was a landmark in the Whoniverse, as the newest companion was announced.

In a special two-minute clip, we see the Twelfth Doctor (played by the fantastic Peter Capaldi) running through corridors to evade a horde of Daleks, accompanied by a young woman with a shock of black hair, bright eyes, a Prince T-shirt, and mint trainers. They turn a corner and hide so that the Doctor can assess the situation; in the meantime, this newcomer to the Whoniverse is making assessments of her own: “They’re fat, they can’t get through the door.” She proceeds to perform a version of verbal ping-pong with the Doctor, in a fashion we’ve not witnessed since… well, we’ll get to that, shortly.

The clip ends with the two further evading the Daleks, but ultimately finding themselves trapped and surrounded by Daleks (oh!, but not before a classic “We have to get… back to the future!” delivery). As the video slows down, our two heroes turn to face the camera, and text on the screen excitedly proclaims: Introducing Pearl Mackie… as Bill!

I am constantly finding myself both grateful and excited to be a part of this fandom, if I’m being honest. I mean, here is a show that has gathered such a following over its fifty-plus years that when announcing a single new character to its roster, has fans sitting, with ferocious dedication, through a professional sports match simply to see the highly-anticipated, two-minute-long clip making said announcement. Now me, I didn’t sit through a sports match, but I did spent thirty minutes on Twitter, refreshing the page every thirty seconds in hopes one of the several nerd accounts I follow would post a link to the video and I would soon be in the know.

It brings to mind a similar situation, back when they officially announced that Peter Capaldi was going to be taking over the coveted and sacred role as the Doctor. I had to work, the day of the announcement, and I had taken pains to contact friends who were just as excited as I was about it, persuading them to text me the moment the announcement was made. To their credit, they followed through and almost at the same time, my phone blew up with messages from my Whovian friends, as ecstatic as I was that Capaldi was going to be the rebellious Gallifreyan.

That same excitement was with me as I watched the announcement clip three times in a row. I could see why Mackie was chosen, based on the dialogue she had against Capaldi’s Doctor, and I’m thoroughly intrigued as to how her character fits in with the rest of the Doctor Who canon.

Now, to the Whovian fandom’s credit, a majority of comments I’ve seen regarding Mackie’s casting and the little bit of her character we saw in the clip have been positive and welcoming of the new companion. However, there are those particular comments, here and there, which reek of “Troll! In the dungeon!” and make every attempt to poo-poo on the excitement of this casting call and the direction in which it looks they are taking the character. Most of the comments I’ve seen have accused the characterization to be ripped from the pages of the “Donna Noble era”; an era in which it seems a solid line is drawn within the Whovian fanbase.

In the almost-decade of which I’ve been a Whovian, I find myself no longer surprised when people tell me, sparing no part of their vernacular to cause, how much they absolutely abhor the character of Donna Noble. That being said, I also no longer find myself surprised when said people are no longer on my friends list and [original text removed to protect the innocence of the author – honest, we don’t know where those new speed bumps came from or how they got there so fast or why they make a sound like muffled screaming when driven over; we blame the government with tax-related excuses and budgetary blah-dee-bloop].

To be fair, I can almost understand why Donna Noble doesn’t strike a particularly positive chord with a section of the Whovian fanbase: she doesn’t immediately get suckered into joining the Doctor on rollicking adventures in the TARDIS after first meeting him, she doesn’t particularly ask his permission to come with him when she does decide she wants to see the rest of the universe, and she doesn’t take any of that old-fashioned guff from him. Ultimately, Donna Noble doesn’t cast any kind of romantic expectations on the Doctor – to the point where, ironically enough, the two are assumed to be an old married couple. (Not for nothing, but if you ever want to hear a fun fan-theory I have as to why they’re assumed as “related”, hit me up on Twitter [@m3jcnv] or on the Gmail [ezonthamel@gmail.com].)

Oh, and in case it didn’t translate through the text, the beginning of that previous paragraph was meant to be just oozing in sarcasm. Why? Because, to be absolutely fair, I expect Donna Noble to be such an unloved companion by some, due to the fact that at its very core: she doesn’t need the Doctor. From a fan point of view, the role of the companion is to be that gateway character, the one with which the audience can immediately identify – why d’you think they’ve pretty much all been human since the 2005 resurgence? It’s fun, as a fan, to put yourself in the metaphorical shoes of the time-traveling alien’s traveling companion; sure, you can try to put yourself in the trainers of said time-traveling alien, but even with the changing face, there’s still a kind of finite set of parameters into which you can fit the role. With the idea of being a companion, the fan can see themselves as how they are in reality, or better yet: how they wished they would be in this world of fantasy. They could be a version of Rose Tyler, working in a shop until one day a man from the stars tells them to “Run!” shortly before said shop gets destroyed in an explosion; or they could be a version of Amelia Pond, whose imaginary friend from childhood comes back when they’re older and takes them on adventures talked about all those years prior. There’s a kind of romantic need for adventure, to allow a stranger the opportunity to whisk you away and take you places you could never imagine.

Truth be told, while it does sound romantic, it also sounds incredibly lazy. But Donna Noble… well, she was completely content with the way her life was going when the TARDIS accidentally latched onto the Huon particles in her system, transported her onto the TARDIS, and as such crash-landed her into the Doctor’s world. Instead of the starry eyes of a Rose Tyler or Martha Jones, Donna’s eyes seethed with contempt and inconvenience. It was her wedding day, and she didn’t have time for any other adventures, thankyouverylittle. Even when it was revealed that the whole “wedding” thing was just an elaborate plan for world domination from a great, big, bug-looking creature called a Raknoss, she wasn’t swayed from her content life on Earth to travel with the Doctor.

It may be simplistic, it may be generalizing on some kind of obtuse scale; but when a big reason why people don’t like Donna Noble is because “she’s not as pretty as the others”, that’s when it translates to, in my head, as “she’s fine not traveling with the Doctor, while I would travel with him in a heartbeat… because he’s so hot!” Again: generalizing. But, as I say, it’s that level of relatability that the companion role holds; Donna Noble sets a new standard for that role, but ironically enough, for a show like Doctor Who, whose core message is that of accepting change, there’s a level of its fanbase that fails to get that message and fits against it at every turn.

Look, people: the fact of the matter is that Doctor Who, with its time having been on television screens, as well as in audio and book form, is an insanely easy program to enjoy. If you don’t like one aspect of the show, but liked another aspect better – watch the better of the two! Why put yourself, and eventually others with your commentary, through a negative experience from which you’ll gain nothing but [again, this section has been redacted – why does that speed bump look like it’s wearing trousers? government spending, amiright?]?

I personally love the fact that it looks like we have yet another companion who will question the Doctor, but purely on the basis of “Are you sure this is right? ‘Cause I don’t think it’s right… Are you really sure?” instead of trying to one-up him in superiority. It will be a nice change from the Clara Oswald dynamic (which I also enjoyed, especially with how they wrapped it up in Series 9) and as we don’t know really anything about “Bill”, I expect we’ll see the dynamic build between the Doctor and Bill as our knowledge of the character will build in parallel.

And, on a final note: we’ve only seen two minutes of this new companion, folks. I know the Internet these days is content with forming a complete opinion of a thing based on its two-minute-or-less representation through teaser trailer, but can we. Just. Not? If we see a teaser trailer thing, and the thing doesn’t interest us, how about we move on to something that does? If we see a character that seems like she’ll fit the mold of another character type, one we didn’t necessarily enjoy when that character type was around, how about we just skip that character’s run? If we read a well-written essay-type thing calling us out in our bull-headedness, how about we just admit our failings and not [christ on a cracker, Andrew!, how many of these are we going to have to remove from this?!]?

I know there are those who are looking forward to this final Moffat-run series; personally, I don’t feel he’s steered us wrong with what he’s had in front of him, and his involvement in casting these past several years has been spot-on. In Moffat I trust, and I’m really looking forward to seeing how Pearl Mackie’s Bill will hold up in the ranks of the companion echelon. Who knows, she just might end up in that three-way with Rose, Amy, and Clara.

With that, I leave you with the wise words of one Jayne Cobb: I’ll be in my bunk.

#tableflipped

Ep.87 – Return to the Friendzone: Civil PodWar!

FedoraIronManMHMG


http://traffic.libsyn.com/matinghabitsofthemoderngeek/Ep87_MHMG.mp3

Sean Ryan returns to have a new discussion about the “Friendzone” which I have recently come to believe doesn’t actually exist. He and I went in thinking we were going to have a podwar about it, but end up concurring in the end.

We spoil the hell out of the season finale of The Walking Dead, squee over the Rogue One trailer, and Sean’s on every podcast and has got a crib up in ‘da crib!

We play a fun game of One, True, Three that, for reasons, may be my favorite so far. Tables get flipped over cancelled circuses and ad-blocker blockers!

CyanideHappinessFriendZone

Ep.86 – Fix it or 86 it: When to try and when to say goodbye.

Fixit86it


http://traffic.libsyn.com/matinghabitsofthemoderngeek/Ep86_MHMG.mp3

Welcome back to the podcast! Andrew Bartlett stops by to help me decide whether to “Fix it or 86 it” with all of my hypothetical relationship problems. We discuss what we would do in certain scenarios, and whether or not we would try and repair a relationship, or just end it altogether.

Andrew “Rick Rolls” me for April Fools Day and takes what he’s learned in My Fair Andrew to the streets! I say goodbye to Trigger Warning: Geeks!, finish every piece of Dragon Age: Inquisition DLC, and do a guest spot on Dumbbells & Dragons!

We play a new game called Magic Movie Box, and flip tables over HB2, and what it means for the LGBTQ community in North Carolina.

Be sure to follow this guy on Twitter – who says this show doesn’t create masterpieces?

Mahthrij Kanoo!

Table-Flip Tuesday: Questionable Flip

such rage, much fury

such rage, much fury

Okay, this is going to be a short one. You’re not going to have to dedicate a month or two to read this. The fact of the matter is: it’s 8:26pm on the Tuesday for which this “Table-Flip Tuesday” was meant to be posted, and seeing as we’ve only a few hours left of Tuesday and I would like to abide by my commitment to helping our dear, lovely, hilarious, intelligent, [insert three more positive and true adjectives here] Kelley, this is what you’re getting – “Table-Flip Tuesday LITE”.

Truthfully, I wanted to have a semi-decent topic for this week’s flip; I was also a little unsure as to how a table-flip about someone flapping tabbles on your dedicated timeline would play out. (Don’t think I’ve ruled it out, however – it’s still up on the special Google Doc I’ve created for this very series of rants.)

This week’s flip was inspired by a particular pet peeve I’ve had since I started working in the field of customer service, and as I was reaching for a relatively short topic, it was as though a choir of angels appeared and proceeded to blast their air-horns in my direction. Once the ringing in my metaphorical ears (think along the lines of “third eye”, only these are more to be imagined as being located possibly at the back of the neck or directly under the chin; it depends on which trait was more dominant between your parents…)

Sorry, I got a little distracted by my parenthetical talk, there. I did say I was going to keep this one short, didn’t I? Promises, promises…

Anyway, once the ringing in my aforementioned and obnoxiously-described metaphorical ears had stopped altogether, I had the target of this week’s table flip: “Can I ask you a question?”

I apologize if you cringed, just now. Don’t worry: I did, too – as I was typing it out! Not only is that particular phrase grammatically incorrect, it’s also a statement that fulfills itself as soon as it’s done. Even if you switch the “can” to “may”, in true grammar-perfect fashion, you’re still dealing with a self-fulfilling statement.

If you were to ask a person, “Can I ask you a question?”, the answer should be obvious: yes, you moronic simpleton!, you truly do possess the ability to ask a question. Even if you, being the person having been asked the question, were to want to say “no”, you’re now the fool; as they have asked you a question, with you having answered it. The transaction is complete, and a little piece of your soul has been lost to this parasite of a statement.

The same sense works were you to change the “can” to “may”. It’s a little more severe, though, as this time the question is more of a request for permission. Answer “yes” or “no” to this question, and the asker has won control. They may now be able to steer the conversation to their whim, be able to make you look like the fool, and most likely be able to control the innermost thoughts of your cat.

What do I suggest? Well, for starters, if you’re someone who has the gall to ask a variation of this inquiry: fuckin’ knock it off! Either that, or just walk out into oncoming traffic – whichever is easiest for you, really.

As for those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being obligated to answer such a ridiculous query, I suggest melting into the nearest hedge, a la that classic Homer Simpson GIF. And if there aren’t any convenient hedge into which to melt? Well, then… I suggest shoving the perpetrator into oncoming traffic. Be sure to stretch, first; you have to be flexible, in case they show any sign of resistance. If they do resist, just direct them to this blog, telling them that it’s okay for them to walk out into oncoming traffic – it’s a civic duty. (Note: if they snorted at “duty”, make sure you especially shove them into the path of an oncoming bus.)

Point is: stop asking this stupid question, and just ask the question you wanted to ask. Yes, you are capable of asking questions – so just ask the damned question, already! And let me get back to counting the ceiling tiles at work, guy who asked about asking about some bath towels!

#tableflipped

Tabble Flap – by Sean Ryan

seantableflap

In the most recent episode of Mating Habits, I was called out for having said that any woman who is hyper-sexual—or even has a healthy sexuality—must have gotten it from “daddy issues”. I have never said such a thing. Or at least, I’ve never generalized it that way. If you think I have, clips or it didn’t happen. It’ll give you the chance to revisit our awesome episode archive.

Oh sure, I’ve made jokes and glib comments about girls with “daddy issues” (especially “the fun kind”) and people who act out from having their “antennas bent”. But my understanding of people’s sexuality isn’t as simple as a direct line from A to B.

Kelley and Paris are absolutely right. Some women just really enjoy sex. Some women just don’t. Both are cool and shouldn’t be stigmatized. Kelley is also right in that the phrase “daddy issues” is often used as a cop out or hasty judgment of a woman’s character. Kelley and Paris mentioned in the podcast that their sexual appetites aren’t the result of any kind of childhood trauma, and I believe them. At the same time, I can’t deny that women with “daddy issues” do also exist. They’re just not who Kelley and the gang are discussing in that episode.

Here’s the thing: “Daddy issues” are real. The phrase is often horribly misused, but there is truth to it.

“Daddy issues” spring from a variety of things; not limited to molestation. Physical abuse, neglect, abandonment, personality clash, alcoholism… All it takes is a shitty role model to affect our behavior as adults. Or as I tend to put it, that’s how some people get their “antennae bent”.

That trauma very commonly manifests into how we handle sex and personal relationships. It’s a strange but real phenomenon where we re-enact our trauma. Typically as a way to manage our feelings or as an unconscious attempt to grasp control over the demons that haunt us.

Some women with “daddy issues” come to recoil from sex. I’ve dated a couple of those. Some women with “daddy issues” work them out through sex. I’ve dated many of those…which may also say a lot about me. Most of the latter ended with the girl sabotaging the relationship by stirring up chaos and drama.

That’s all not to say that anyone who acts out sexually is “damaged goods”. Many hyper-sexual women are happy and able to maintain healthy relationships. I’ve also dated a couple women who have just had healthy sexuality, which I consider a blessing.

My advice is to give women the benefit of the doubt. Just enjoy the ride (*wink wink*). At the same time, be aware of red flags that suggest that this person may be wrestling with some baggage that could spill into your relationship with them,. It’s all fun until someone gets hurt.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Sex After Trauma (Pt. II): The Psychology Behind My Promiscuity

What Motivates Sexual Promiscuity?

Dr. NerdLove: It’s OK To Want Sex

Ep.85 – Highly Sexual Women: The Legend, The Facts, The Stigma.

MHMG85


http://traffic.libsyn.com/matinghabitsofthemoderngeek/Ep85_MHMG.mp3
Paris and The Business, LLC are back to help me talk about how society treats women who are comfortable with their sexuality, how suggesting that women who have sex “as if they’re men” is inherently sexist, and how just because a woman has sex freely with multiple people doesn’t mean she wants to have sex with you – and that’s okay.

Paris conquers the climate world by volunteering at museums and giving scientific talks on mountain tops; The Business listens to every podcast imaginable; and I discuss everything from 10 Cloverfield Lane (Guaranteed: SPOILER FREE!), to my love of British panel shows and Richard Herring.

We each get to choose a superpower for just one day and tables are flipped over people who are rude to waitstaff, porn addictions, and Millennials telling me to “get informed” at their own peril.

Quotation-Tristan-Taormino-freedom-sexuality-human-feminism-Meetville-Quotes-21462

Table Flip: Ghostbusters

such rage, much fury

such rage, much fury

Let’s start this thing by not mincing words: this past Thursday, the official trailer for the new Ghostbusters was released; if you didn’t like it, then you’re wrong. Period. Exclamation point.

I’m going to be completely honest with you when I say that I was originally on the side of the non-believers, the purists, the “don’t take away our Ghostbusters” proclaimers. At that time in my life, I felt as though too many things from my childhood, things that guided and molded me into the person writing this-here blog post today, were being taken and reshaped into something to appease and appeal to a “newer” audience. The “ain’t broke, don’t fix” mindset came to the fore; if you want to introduce a new audience to an already-popular franchise, what sense does it make, reinventing the franchise in order to achieve that?

As it turns out: it makes a whole helluva-lotta sense!

We’ll look at another franchise, near and dear to my childhood heart, that has had its fair share of reinventing and having said reinvention brought to life, once again, on the big screen: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Comic book origins aside, I had grown up with the cartoon series and graduated to the live-action movies; mind you, Turtles in Time didn’t hold up as well as the first two for me, so I reverted back to the animated stuff, faith restored in the movie versions when the computer-animated TMNT was released. When Nickelodeon decided to reboot the animated series, I was fine with it – especially after seeing a few episodes with my nephew, and seeing how much of an homage it was to the classic cartoon series.

But hearing that Michael Bay was going to be releasing a series of live-action Turtles movies? Oh, fuck no! We can’t be having any of that! Not only was it a poor choice to have Bay, of all people, involved in the project – what with the rumors going around that he was going to make said “heroes in a half-shell” of alien origin and completely destroy the lore – but ultimately it came down to: Why? Why does this need to be a thing?

After having conversations with several friends, said friends being on both sides of the argument for the movie, I decided to give the recent Turtles movie a chance… and was sorely disappointed that I had spent the money on a ticket. When asked what I thought of the movie by a friend, I proceeded to jokingly reply with: “Let’s just say that I had a cop, afterward, ask me to point on the doll where Michael Bay had violated my childhood.”

In reality, though, my childhood stays in tact, what with the classic series available on DVD and Nickelodeon doing a damned fine job holding their own with the current animated series. No, what ultimately bothered me about the recent Turtles film was the fact that, at multiple times, the narrative asked that viewers both disregard as well as remember the original source material; the story that those of us seeing the movie in our mid- to late-thirties had grown up watching. It was very jarring, jumping from a mangled back story to, out of nowhere, bringing up the fact that Leonardo and Raphael have some kind of deeper sibling rivalry going than they did with the other turtles. Add to the chaos a Shredder who was more Transformer than badass ninja warrior guy dude, and you’ve got a new image to put next to the definition of “trainwreck” in the dictionary.

It was on the heels of accepting the trauma of the recent Turtles movie that I heard about the new Ghostbusters movie. Regardless of the casting decisions (I couldn’t care less if the cast were all-female this go-round) I was not so keen on the idea of yet another ‘80s staple brought back out of the archive, dust blown off, and shaken around in Hollywood’s attempt to keep pumping out stories for the movie-going crowd. I was immediately on the side of “No, no, no. Dear God, no. For the love of everything that is sacred: NO.”

However, after having conversations with a few people who were, again, on both sides of that proverbial fence – some with me on the “No” train, others who were okay with it – I started to steer more into the idea of being okay with it, to the point of actually being curious as to what this version of the story could bring to the proverbial table. If nothing else, said steering was caused by those who were of the same mind as I was, as far as “No” was concerned; however, that was about as far as our causes aligned. The biggest criticism I saw was against the all-female casting, and it was ultimately this criticism that made me rethink my own criticism against the idea. With that, I started to analyze my own “reasons” for my negativity, and when it was all said and done, said negativity was found to be completely ridiculous and uncalled for.

If nothing else, nothing is being taken away from the children within us, who grew up with the original Ghostbusters series. Just like I mentioned with the Turtles, the original movies are available to own on DVD and Blu-ray; in fact, they’re probably even available to watch on such streaming applications as Hulu or Netflix. They’re not automatically locked in some kind of vault, never to see the light of day again, just because this new movie is gaining a life of its own – we’re not dealing with Disney, here. So calm down, nerds: your precious childhood is still in tact.

Also, let’s be honest for just a moment here: like with most ‘80s films, Ghostbusters is a bit dated. Not as much as Back to the Future (as that actually deals with actual dates), but you can tell that, compared to films being released these days, there’s something slightly off about the original Ghostbusters. This is not to say that there’s anything wrong with the original; but try to get a child or teenager to get into the series now, and you’re more than likely to get a bored look, followed by a flagrant show of aggression in the form of said child or teenager putting their Virtual Reality helmets back on and getting back to their blasted Dan Fogelberg and Pac-Man video games.

Quite frankly, this new Ghostbusters is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t – that much, you can already tell, only from how this first official trailer has drawn a clearer line between those who are giving it a shot and those who are ready to shoot it dead. The trailer itself pops, with an updated version of the original theme to induce goosebumps for anyone with a lick of positive nostalgia. (A theme that, while very catchy, was kinda-sorta stolen from Huey Lewis is structure. Just sayin’, purist nerdboys.) It also gives us a look at the characters and the sparkly special effects.

But let me tell you, what truly guaranteed my dropping of the dollars for the price of admission was the Ecto-1: the vehicle our rag-team crew used to not only get around New York City, but also as a mobile advert for their bustin’-of-the-paranormal business. I have an affinity for the vehicles in these supernatural/Science Fiction genres (ex: gotta love the likes of the TARDIS, the Millenium Falcon, the Serenity, the USS Enterprise, etc., etc.) so I love the looks of both versions of the Ecto-1; however, it’s the individual origins of these two vehicles and what they represent that have my nerd-dar… erm, ner-adar… whatever, nerd radar beeping fanatically.

In the ‘80s universe of Ghostbusters, the Ecto-1 was fashioned from a 1950s professional ambulance, while in the new Ghostbusters, it’s fashioned from a hearse. One gives off the message of “We’re here to save the living”; the other, “We’re here to deal with the dead”. For a series whose new vision of the universe involves a flip-flopping of the gender roles, having the four leads be female while the secretary role is played by none other than Thor Odinsson, the juxtaposition of the Ecto-1 between versions makes even more sense. And shows that some thought was put into making this version; at the very least, it makes me, with all my head-canons and hypotheses, believe extra thought was put into it – and that’s what matters.

And, yes, that is what I got from the trailer. The trailer that was only a couple minutes long. The trailer that was meant to show a little bit more than what we had to go on already. The trailer that was meant to spark conversations regarding the film it was promoting.

Some feel that the trailer was horrendous and “un-funny”. I’ve already put several words to this table-flip, so I’ll consider to make the attempt to not belabor this point for too long. As I said before, this trailer was damned if it did and damned if it didn’t. The way most trailers run, these days (unless you’re JJ Abrams), you can save your money on buying a ticket, and just spend the time piecing together all the bits from every trailer released for any one particular movie – I mean, if I didn’t want to go out and socialize recently, I probably would have done so with the recent Marvel films. And it’s that type of mindset that led to feeling like seeing these movies was some kind of a chore; yes, there were a few things that were left out from the trailers, but pretty much every “good bit” was shown several times over in the trailers.

I feel this trailer for Ghostbusters was simply a means to show the bright and shiny new things about this universe. New characters? Check. New vehicle? Check. New ghost-bustin’ weapons? Double check. Shiny new logo? Checks all the way to the bank.

With all that, I’m completely fine with not feeling that the trailer didn’t highlight as much of the comedy as many of my friends and fellow podcasters felt it probably should have. Then again, you’re dealing with a franchise that originally starred Bill Murray – tell me, friends: with that in mind, did you truly think the initial trailer for this movie was going to have one-line zingers to top that of Murray himself? Or maybe that’s the point of the vehemence toward this film and its trailer.

Either way, I have faith in this film. Needless to say, there’s been plenty of shite to hit the cinemas recently that have not received the amount of vitriol that this trailer has; some, I must say, more deserving.

All I’ll say is this: if you’re not happy with this latest Ghostbusters film based on the trailer, that’s fine. You’re wrong, but that’s fine. It’s just a movie, and if you’re letting it affect you (“to your core” – I’m looking at you, Lynch), then it’s already won. It’s already in your head, and sooner or later it’s going to plant the curiosity in your mind as to whether or not it’s as bad as you have mentally built it up to be.

So let’s see what more comes from the studios before the actual film’s release. Or not.

#tableflipped