Kicking and flailing

 https://ghostbustersnews.com/2021/10/29/ghostbusters-afterlife-was-secretly-being-developed-in-2016-same-year-as-the-franchise-was-rebooted/

 

I really have to scratch my head when I hear people give apropos to the 2016 GB reboot.  The director of Ghostbusters: Afterlife seems to think Paul Feig did something monumental just by casting females as Ghostbusters.  He says Feig "broke down the door".  The sexist trolls who hated GB '16 before it was ever released are not gone because of Paul Feig.  And I do think the movie would have done better had it not been for them but I don't think it would have been a "success" per se. I think the film would have made another $100 million had sexism not been an obstacle for many people liking the movie, which on paper would be the same #s as the first Ghostbusters film.  That's more than what the OG made, but that's in 1984 dollars.  The amount of Ghostbusters grossed at the box office with inflation factored in is closer to a billion.  GB '16 would have had to make at least $500 million -- roughly half -- to even compare to the original in terms of box office performance.  It didn't make half of THAT.  GB2 made apprx $500 million which would have been enough for a sequel a lot sooner had the owners of Columbia Pictures changed.  Between Bill Murray's bitterness about GB2 and Sony not wanting to pay as much as The Coke-A-Cola Compnay had promised in the contracts that they had drawn up... it just took a really long time to happen.  If Harold Ramis were still alive, I'm not even sure GB3 would even be happening.  Jason Reitman even acknowledges that the story of GB:AFTERLIFE solidified in his mind after Harold Ramis had passed.  If a GB3 were ever going to happen, it'd have to be without Bill Murray, which is fine by me but a lot of people would probably refuse to see it based on that alone.

I'm not meaning to say that box office performance necessarily proves a movie to be good.  Certain genres of film are naturally going to have a very low performance.  A movie like BASKET CASE or HEAVENLY CREATURES is not going to plow through the records book.  At least not any significant records book  You might see some bizarre personal plea to the world such as those films were breaking records for like most tickets per screen on such and such weekend...but nothing like Top 10 of x year or whatever.  Exceptions abound, obviously....it's hard to say why a film like BEETLEJUICE can be so successful yet A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE was a box office bomb.  Surely, the subject matter of A.I. is more relatable than that of BEETLEJUICE.  ..
  And then there's just plain oddities like THE POSTMAN, which I think, being a futuristic "what if" kind of movie, is going to have naysayers because of a variety of things that people just don't see eye to eye with.  Videohound's review indicated a sense of befuddlement over the idea that a mail man could in some way be interpreted as a symbol of patriotism.  That's just one example. I could probably think of more if I looked harder.
I guess it's quite possible that GB '16 is in its own way on par with THE POSTMAN.  I just don't see it.

Brighter

 !!!! 
Had a counseling session a couple hours ago and was reminded that JESUS CHRIST paid for my sins and that my PRIMARY FOCUS SHOULD BE ON HIM!!!!!
How sweet it is.

FEAR some God, idiot me

I don't know what to do.  I feel myself constantly falling back on God's grace, being disobedient and swaying to my own inclinations and not submitting.

I'm not even sure I understand how this whole dynamic is supposed to work.  Am I supposed to FEAR God, like, "I'm gonna kill you if you don't quit this nonsense" or is sexual sin just like any other sin i.e.: you can be forgiven infinitely?
Hopefully The Lord takes this confusion in consideration before He decides on the severity of the consequence.................

gratitude at the grill

 So far, I'm aware of only ONE cure for sexual immorality --- and that is, gratitude.
I don't know if this is unforgiveable or not, but if I were being cut into pieces while alive, I would not be thanking Jesus.   I would be EXPECTING that something better than it lay beyond the horizon, in the after-life, but the pain would not be something I could FIGHT.  "You have to fight the pain!"  Paul lived exclusively for God, even before he was an apostle.  He did out of self righteousness, basically taking whatever pent up sexuality he had and replacing it with violence.  He met Jesus, and saw how beautiful He is, and his sexual desires were the last thing on his mind.  Also, Paul was not lazy.  He didn't have time to be lazy.  Between his devotion to God, and his very physically demanding life, he was able & willing to do everything it took to pursue holiness.  And I realize there are lots of other people in modern day Earth who for whatever reason love God more than I do and are eager to serve Him, regardless of the cost.  I don't understand how "The chains are gone".  Every time I hear a song that talks about that, I just go "WTH?"  Versus in The Bible that talk about that, I'm just like "Ok..", and just keep reading, because there's usually information that's at least instructive and comforting, or at least one of the two.  I'm going through counseling regarding this, and I just don't forsee this being something that talking over is going to help.  This is not a theological term paper.  This is the reality at hand and much of The Bible deals with reality secondhand.  We know that objects fall when not held by anything.  The Bible isn't a means to figure out the fabric of time and space.  The Bible isn't a means to diagnose and cure mental illness.  There is some very good instruction in there and if followed will lead to a prosperous life, overall.  But the stank of humanity, which varies from person to person, my stank being especially foul given my ungrateful brat self, JESUS CHRST DIED FOR ME TO LIVE LIFE ABUNDANTLY and I just reject it, what the foul is wrong with me???  That's how it is.  Instruction only goes so far.   And there's a little snippet somewhere in The Bible, proverbs, I think, that talks about the kind of person I am, who has instruction and it hasn't changed anything.

Ghostbusters 3

 ARRG!
Still not wrapping my mind around people who lambast a sequel for being exactly what it claims itself to be -- A SEQUEL!
GBII was a perfectly fine sequal to the 1984 film.  It did exactly what it was supposed to do -- deliver up a 2nd helping of "Ghostbusters"
GBIII obviously is not able to simply just deliver up another supernatural episode involving the comedic talents of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, etc....  The original cast are going to be appear in this new installment and they might even don the equipment they're known for, but the idea is to keep it coming and in order to do that, they need to introduce new characters.  So, that aside, GB3, in its' "placating of old fans", as some buthead on the interenet accuses the film of doing, is succeeding at being what it is -- a sequel. 
A sequel CAN of course be a completely new film independent of anything that came before it.  That is not an impossibility.  But that's not why SONY is funding a 2nd sequel to Ghostbusters.  The goal is not and never has been to start a new franchise or create an entirely new intellectual property.  Seriously, ppl!!!!

HONOR, Love and Gozer's pet rat

I don't get how how people express an interest in seeing Bill Murray's character's misguided declaration that "the franchise rights along will make rich beyond wildest dreams" come to fruition.  Dan Aykroyd's character, and Harold Ramis', were both knee deep in the study of spiritism (how am I spelling that wrong??Rr) and neither of them had high hope for the business venture that Venkman (Bill Murray) had sprung up on them.  Stantz (Aykroyd) is shaking his head in disagreement the whole time Venkman is declaring how the franchise rights will bring them great fortune.
GHOSTBUSTERS is told from the POV that ghosts do indeed exist but they are not lurking behind every other house.  The idea that theyd be able to make a decent income off of paranormal investigations and eliminations was a very long shot. 
I was thinking earlier that if GHOSTBUSTERS had been a true story, it would point to GOD (THE God, not Gozer The Gozarian) being in control despite the spiritual turmoil that was apparent in the film.  And I was thinking the presence of a gender fluid supernatural force that thinks of itself as a God and isn't declaring itself to be Satan, I was thinking "How do you insert that into any kind of narrative that is true?"  And honestly, **if** GHOSTBUSTERS had been written from factuality, I would simply have to concede it's one of many mysteries.  Bottom line is there are things that UNFOLD - IN - THE BIBLE ---- things that are not ambiguous or otherwise in need of decoding, but are plainly explained as part of a narrative ---- that people like myself and most everyone I've met simply cannot explain without at least appearing to contradict some facet of commonly understood truth.
For instance, is it still possible to summon spirits from the dead?  In the Old Testament, it was.  King Saul summoned Samuel after he'd departed this Earth.  But people suspect that OT saints were being held in kind of a vault until Jesus came.  Maybe that's more or less accurate.  Maybe only people that go to Hell are summonable by the dead. 
But that's an interesting series of questions that pertain to doing something that God flat out told His people not to do.  If you look at the passage, it's basically Saul wanting information that Samuel isn't able to offer.  Saul asks Samuel whatever it was he was wanting and Samuel says something to the effect of "Why are you bothering me about this?  I told you all of this was to come about and how to avoid it.  But you never listened to me"  That's got some larger implications.  Basically, it's one of many many MANY examples of mankind expecting to find a cure for its' ailments.  Saul wanted to be disobedient to God and hateful toward his fellow Hebrew, his successor, of all people, mostly, and still find satisfaction in life.  I can attest to this: You can't be happy in life and be disobedient to God.  You can be happy in life and not be a Christian, yes.  You can be tainted with sin, and be apathetic about it and carry on like it's 1985.  But if you are called by God, if you have accepted His call, and you haven't turned your back on it, then you can't find satisfaction, at least not fully, in seasons of disobedience.  It just doesn't work that way.  The tried and true hymm "Trust and obey" I do believe states it with utmost clarity: "There is no other way to be happy in Jesus but to trust and obey". 

Samuel did right by God in telling his brethren, including Saul, what God wanted them to know.  Samuel was dedicated by his mother for the purpose of hearing God speak to him and proclaiming what he'd heard.  That is a good example for all of us to follow, to not hold back in speaking of our beloved savior, the precious gift of salvation He has given freely to all who trust Him.  But the story of his after-life presence, although it does have questions that I'm sure more than just me would prefer to have the answer to, it is above all a tale of a man desperately caught up in disobedience to God Almighty thinking he can find a way out.  There is no way out.  This life will always have a promise of greener greens, higher highs and greater greats.  Sometimes those promises have something of a hint of value to them, but there is nothing of equal value that one can trade for peace of mind.  And chasing anything, be it information, stuff, whatever it may be, is counter-productive to any receiving of peace.  I can attest to this as well.  I mean, there are things worth chasing obviously.  Pandora internet radio isn't going to just happen.  Someone had to toil at mass producing computers and then lobbying to free the internet, and then of course someone had to start Pandora internet radio and keep at it until technology caught up with everyone including Pandora.  As for myself, I do have to enter it into a "search" bar or type the whole thing into the address bar and hope I don't mis-spell it and walk into a virus...which does indeed happen to me sometimes.....But I would much rather just chill out and listen to Pandora than constantly be sifting through full length albums trying to determine if any of them are worth buying individually and figuring out why they aren't and trying to excuse myself from things I don't like about either myself or my lot in life or the nature of commerce in general.  Truth be told, only a handful of artists made money pre-Spotify.  Now, they all make money, but most of them are lucky to make enough to live off of.  However, it is more equitable so really my main issue is my asinine persistence in buying music CDs instead of just chipping in a reasonable amount to the music I truly like.  So many ways to do things better.  And it's worth it, IMO.  Staying in the same tarpit through life is just abysmal.  It's one thing to make it shore and then fall into another tar pit.  A guest preacher noted that there's a fundamental wrongness in the children's Sunday school song about climbing Jacob's ladder.  And I agree with him, the idea is not to sneak into Heaven.  The idea is, trying to be accurate here, I might be falling on my face ---- the idea is HONOR.  I've been reading Romans chapter 13 a few times over the last couple days.  We should honor those who are worthy of honor, those who have taken on the challenge of resisting temptation and are 8 to 10 or more, coming along victorious.  We should honor government.  We should honor the governments' clerical workers.  But we should LOVE one another.  Bros & sis' in Christ should love each other, as Christ Himself loved us.  We should love everyone else as well, as one of the other places in The Bible the pastor pointed out a couple weeks ago, it's not the same depth of love that we have for each other as the bridegroom but it's more akin to honor; rather than debase them or belittle them or humiliate them, we should respect them for the potential that is within them and their inherent value as imagebearers of God, and we should communicate what we can about God to them when opportunities arise to do so, but we should not have inward affection toward them the way we do toward other members of The Body.

Anyway........that wasn't a very strong closing sentence, but I'm kinda half needing to go to bed and I'm out of things to say at the moment......