Well hello! I’ve been working for the past couple of weeks on the big, annual April feature, Rule of Three. That’s my series in which I take a look at three related comedy films, beginning on April Fool’s Day. The second and third entries will post on April 8 and April 15, giving each of them a solid week to breathe and be discussed.
This time around, I’ll be focusing on the three Ghostbusters films. I’ve even added the schedule to the Trilogy of Terror page. (I guess I really should give Rule of Three its own page soon, huh?) While there, you can check out the previous features on Muppet films and Pee-wee films. They’re great articles. I should know, because I wrote them.
We’ll get into Ghostbusters pretty extensively over the next few weeks, so I won’t say much now except that the first two films are quite important to me, and revisiting them through a critical lens was damned interesting. I’m glad I took the opportunity to do so.
The third film, obviously, is a minefield. I don’t know quite what to expect in terms of reaction to my article, but we’ll find out together, I guess. (When a friend of mine learned I was covering the Ghostbusters films, he just said, “Good luck.”) I do get the sense the controversy around that movie has died down to the point that adults are now allowed to discuss it, and I hope that’s the case, because it’s worth discussing. Just not for any of the reasons the film makers — or the film’s detractors — seem to think.
I do have a question regarding this type of feature, though: Do you like knowing ahead of time what I will cover?
In the past, I’ve kept those cards close to my chest. I work on these features in secret, and then blast them out without any prior indication of what they’ll be.
I’ve done this for a few reasons. For instance, I might think I want to cover something, and then realize I don’t have much to say and need to switch topics. Or posting about a topic in advance might stir up some conversation that will then affect the things I do or don’t write about, feeling the need to address what folks have already brought up as opposed to what I’d personally like to say.
Then again, letting readers know ahead of time what to expect means they can seek out the movies to watch for themselves, turning this into more of a communal event. And it gives them a chance to get their thoughts together ahead of time, so that they can leave comments and participate in the discussion without relying on hazy memory.
So, hey, you’ve got a week. Dig out your copy of Ghostbusters. It’s worth it.
This time around, I revealed the Rule of Three topic (or rather posted a very obvious hint) to the Noiseless Chatter Facebook page. Now I’m announcing it here, just shy of a week in advance. The world kept spinning, so I’m considering doing that for future features.
What do you think? Do you prefer the surprise of showing up on April 1 to find a new post on an unknown topic? Would you rather know in advance? Or do you literally have no opinion one way or the other? (UNTHINKABLE)
Let me know. I’m curious. This is one of those situations in which I don’t think I can come to the “best” answer on my own. I need to hear what you guys and gals prefer, and I can easily make my own arrangements from there.
Anyway, enjoy your week. I’m getting these three features edited and formatted, and I’ll see you here on Sunday, April 1, for the extensive writeup on 1984’s Ghostbusters.
It will be the only film in the series we’ll all agree on.
See you then.
I am interested in your opinion on the third film.
Unless it’s just using the framework of your opinion on the first film and sentences are built out of synonyms that might look good in and of themselves with little consideration for the text as a whole.
I don’t mind knowing what series you’ll be discussing in advance. I think it helps to generate anticipation.
I can’t remember if it’s ever come up, but have you played the 2009 Ghostbusters game? It’s about as close to an original cast sequel that we were honestly ever going to see, and it was actually not too bad.