Does Ghostbusters Represent Ghost Hunting in Real Life?

October 8, 2021October 8, 2021 Alex Matsuo

Disclosure: Some of the links below are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, I will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase.

One of the most common questions I’m asked is whether or not Ghostbusters is accurate to real-life ghost hunting. Anytime I do conventions like ConCarolinas, AtomaCon, MystiCon, etc. I’m usually on a panel about Ghostbusters in some capacity. Either it’s “Ghostbusters versus Ghost Hunting”, or “Real-Life Ghostbusting”, something to that effect. Because I am a paranormal investigator and also a fan of Ghostbusters, it makes me one of the go-to people for that topic. With the new movie, Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021), coming up, this is the perfect time to talk about real life versus fiction.

Real Ghost Hunting

There are some things about Ghostbusters that are definitely not true. For one, ghost hunting is never that exciting. In reality, you’re sitting in the dark for eight hours and then you might see like maybe a blip of an apparition or something may fall over that has no explanation. That’s if you’re lucky. But that’s it. You know we don’t really ever see full-bodied apparitions right away or sometimes ever.

We can’t catch ghosts and put them in a ghost trap. We don’t use proton packs and use the streams to wrangle spirits.

Also we’re more discreet. When I do residential cases, I’m not in my team t-shirt or anything like that. We tend to dress like normal people in regular street clothes. This happens because we don’t want to draw attention to ourselves. We do our investigations very privately because our clients may not want the neighborhood to know that they have a haunted house. Truly, we wouldn’t be walking around in flight suits and our equipment all hanging out unless we are someplace like Gettysburg where ghost hunting is a thing. But, none of us own flight suits. My team has t-shirts, but we don’t have official uniforms.

A Family History

I think most, if not all, Ghostbusters fans know by now that Dan Aykroyd has a family history of psychical researchers, parapsychology researchers, and paranormal researchers. His great-grandfather, Samuel Aykroyd, was interested in psychic research and psychic experiences. He regularly held seances in his home and he primarily worked with a medium named Walter Ashurst. So Samuel, Dan Aykroyd’s great-grandfather, had this keen interest in psychics being in touch with the other side. That interest went on to Maurice Aykroyd, who is Dan Aykroyd’s grandfather. They were owners of journals like the American Society for Psychical Research and other academic studies of the supernatural.

In fact, Dan’s father, Peter Aykroyd, wrote a book called, A History of Ghosts: The True Story of Seances, Mediums, Ghosts, and Ghostbusters. You can get it on Kindle for about ten dollars. If you want a paperback copy, you’re gonna be spending almost a hundred bucks right now. I’m guessing it’s because of the Ghostbusters name being so big right now. Everyone’s trying to scramble to get a copy of the book. I happened to find mine at a used bookstore. It’s a great book. Dan Aykroyd wrote the foreword for the book. So Dan took his family’s interest and family history and integrated elements of that into the Ghostbusters movies.

Zener Cards

So there’s a lot of things sprinkled throughout the movies that you know are exaggerations or embellishments, but they’re not complete fabrications. One of my favorites are the Zener cards. They are what you see in the beginning of the first Ghostbusters movie. Venkman, played by Bill Murray, is doing a test with Zener cards. This is based on testing ESP and intuition. But also, it’s like a probability game too. So people will do these tests and you can do them at home too. There’s actually worksheets available online where you can test your ESP, your intuition, and check off if you’re right or wrong. You don’t even need other people to do this. All you have to do is shuffle the cards and concentrate. I love these cards and they’re really good just to have fun with.

Witness Interviews

Another thing that is true uh you know when we’re in the first Ghostbusters movie is interviews with witnesses. In the movie, after the librarian sees the ghost and collapses on the sofa, Venkman is basically questioning her. By the way, I love how Venkman is the resident skeptic. Every team should have a skeptic. He’s asking the librarian if she has any family history of mental incompetence, history of drugs or alcohol, and more. This is actually very typical of what my team will ask our clients. We ask similar questions about a history of drugs and alcohol, and have they been diagnosed with anything psychologically. This is to get the full picture and the full story to try to debunk as much as possible.

We don’t want to involuntarily validate someone unnecessarily, so we’ll ask those kinds of questions because we really want to know what we’re working with here. Also, we don’t walk in right away believing the person now. We go in fully understanding that scary experience was very real to our clients, and what we’re there to do is to help them understand what that experience was. More often than not, it’s helping them understand that those footsteps they heard were squeaky floorboards.

Recording Everything & The Legal Stuff

Of course, we record everything. We got our camcorders, audio recorders and a full system surveillance setup. There is usually someone watching the cameras during investigations because we want to see everything that’s happening. We can’t be in multiple places at once. So those cameras help us record everything. By the way, in case you’re wondering, yes, we do have clients sign liability paperwork. They sign release forms and they sign contracts.

Another thing that is pretty true is how people react to seeing ghosts. For example, when the guys are seeing the ghost in the library for the first time, they’re like, “So what do we do?” That actually happens more often than you think on ghost hunts. Especially when you do have a skeptic who has an experience. We rarely say “Get her!” or “ Get them!” We don’t do that because more often than not we lose that connection.

The Tech

I wish I had an Egon Spengler on my team. The PKE meter, the gigameter, the goggles, proton packs, ghost traps…obviously none of them are real. Tny of the tech that we do have as ghost hunters is not made to detect ghosts. They’re made to detect something else.

Maybe the closest piece of equipment to reality is the PKE meter? You know a lot of paranormal investigators will compare to a K2 meter. What that does is it detects the levels of electromagnetic fields. This doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s a ghost nearby. It just means that the EMF is high wherever we’re at. There is a common belief that high EMF or fluctuating EMF means there are spirits. My team measures the level of electromagnetic fields. If there is a high level of EMF, sometimes that does cause hallucinations or feelings of someone watching you. Many will assume right away that it’s a paranormal experience. But really you might just need to turn off a TV or a computer here and there.

So really, what we’re doing is we’re detecting changes in the environment. We don’t actually have equipment that can detect ghosts. We’re looking for changes in the environment and then seeing if there’s any correlation with paranormal experiences. For example, if someone sees a shadow in the hallway, then they hear a piece of equipment go off, we’ll make a note of it and try to debunk it first. We don’t have the fancy tech like they do in Ghostbusters that actually detect ghosts but we do have tech.

University Research Programs

Another part of Ghostbusters that is kind of true is that there are research programs within universities to study paranormal and parapsychological events. Duke University used to have a parapsychology unit within their psychology department, run by J.B. Rhine. Once Rhine left Duke, he actually took the parapsychology unit with him. Today, we have the Rhine Research Center and they’re still active to this day. they’re still going strong. There are people with scientific backgrounds who are exploring this. They’re doing experiments, and they’re publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals. Universities with parapsychology programs that are definitely not fabrication. If you want to study parapsychology in a university setting, more often than not, you’re going to have to go overseas.

I know the University of Edinburgh has parapsychology under the psychology department. There are even a few people who will get their master’s degrees or get some sort of certificates from these graduate programs in university. I actually know some folks who have PhDs. They’re not necessarily like parapsychology or in the paranormal but they use a paranormal emphasis in their studies. For example, I know someone with a PhD in psychology and she studied the psychological effects of EVP on people. That’s kind of a loophole you know some people will use to still study the paranormal and get that academic credibility.

Self-Promotion

Another thing in Ghostbusters that’s pretty legit is the commercials. Paranormal investigators are all about self-promotion because there are so many people in the paranormal community. You have to make yourself stand out sometimes if you want to get work. When I say “work”, I mean investigation opportunities. No one’s making money from this. We do take calls and we do take case submissions. I mentioned earlier my clients have to fill out a form and they have to sign paperwork. We do residential investigations, but you have to sign the paperwork and fill out the forms. We do this to prevent future legal issues.

Charging for Services

In Ghostbusters, they charge for their services. In the first movie, I think they quoted the hotel like five thousand dollars. If you charge in the paranormal community today, you are going to have a bad time. It’s very much frowned upon. you don’t charge to help people with their paranormal situations. From a legal standpoint, it’s really sketchy to charge because you can’t prove the existence of ghosts. Rule of thumb: you don’t charge. I don’t charge for investigations. The only areas where I make money from the paranormal are from my books, YouTube monetization, any sort of creator fund like on TikTok. I make the money but I would never charge a client for trying to help them with their haunting.

Poltergeist Activity

The paranormal events that happen to Dana, like the eggs popping and cooking on the counter top, are often associated with poltergeist-like activity. For me I look more poltergeist activity is coming from within like it’s an external response to something happening within. From the research I’ve done, poltergeist is similar to telekinesis and psychokinesis that’s out of control so it’s coming from the person, not a ghost.

There’s also residual hauntings but Ghostbusters doesn’t really cover them. Residual hauntings would be leftover energy that’s still “active”, like at the Battle of Gettysburg. For example, you see a ghost walk across the field at three o’clock every day but he doesn’t respond to you. He just walks across the field. More than likely that’s residual. If the spirit acknowledges you answers your questions, then we would classify that as an intelligent haunting or conscious haunting.

Possession

The possession aspect with Zuul and Zephyr, the key and the gatekeeper, well…I’m on the fence about possession. But, it is a well-discussed topic in the paranormal field. It’s a lighthearted take on possession. I actually don’t know if I really believe in demons anyway. That’s a whole other conversation for another time. The way that the movie depicts possession is fairly accurate to the beliefs behind the phenomenon.

Shape-Shifting

Let’s talk about shape-shifting. One of my favorite moments in the movie is when Ray chooses the Stay-Puft Marshmallow man as the form for Gozer. The whole reveal is brilliant. But shape-shifting entities aren’t original to the movie. In fact, it’s a hot topic in the paranormal community. Do we even know we’re dealing with ghosts? What if we’re dealing with inhuman or elemental spirits that are just shape-shifting? This is why we won’t ever prove the existence of ghosts, by the way. There’s so many theories and runarounds. Shape-shifting is a thing in the community too.

Ectoplasm

Another thing that’s in the movie, but very rare….ectoplasm. It’s a hot topic in the Ghostbusters movies. I don’t personally believe in ectoplasm; there are people who do. Ectoplasm was common during the Spiritualism movement because that gave some sort of tangible proof of communication. It was physical “proof” that there was paranormal activity. But usually, ectoplasm ends up being cheesecloth that the medium would regurgitate from their mouth. Gross.

That’s my breakdown on ghost hunting versus Ghostbusters. Now you know the true story behind this famous franchise.

Sources

https://www.vikingwarriordesign.com/post/things-you-might-not-know-about-ghostbusters

https://members.huntakiller.com/blog-articles/2021/2/11/the-haunted-history-of-dan-aykroyds-family

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ghostbusters-is-real

https://www.yahoo.com/now/dan-aykroyd-ghost-stories-hotel-paranormal-150046932.html

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10716928/

The Reality Behind ‘The Conjuring: The Devil Made Do It’

June 11, 2021June 11, 2021 Alex Matsuo

Ed and Lorraine Warren were some of the most famous paranormal investigators of their time. Their legacy and career have now been preserved in film format with the “The Conjuring” series. While the Warrens are well known, their careers are controversial. Yes, the movies are entertaining, but are they true? Let’s take a deeper dive into the true story behind “The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It.”

“Based on a True Story”

Truth time: The Conjuring movies are some of my favorite horror movies. What makes them exceptionally compelling is that they’re “based on a true story.”

Why the quotation marks? Movies that are “based on a true story” are usually LOOSELY based on a true story. Producers and screenwriters often have to take artistic liberties in order to make the story more interesting.

For example, in “The Conjuring 2”, the movie was centered around how Ed and Lorraine Warren helped the Hodgson family with what is now called the Enfield Poltergeist. But Ed and Lorraine weren’t the only investigators working on the case.Maurice Grosse and Guy Lyon Playfair from the Society of Psychical Research were actually the main investigators.

In fact, according to Maurice Grosse, Ed and Lorraine showed up for a very short time.Ed apparently pulled Grosse aside and said he could make a lot of money off the case, and Ed was sent away. There’s a lot more to the story, maybe I’ll tell you more in the future.

With this in mind, we should expect some things to be exaggerated with movies that are “based on a true story.” What’s the true story behind the murder trial that became known as the “Devil Made Me Do It” case? Let’s find out.

First, a disclaimer: Spoiler Alert! If you don’t want to be spoiled, stop reading right now. I’ll break down some of the more obvious differences between the movie and real-life, and then take a deeper dive into the actual story.

The Town of Brookfield

Before we can talk about the murder trial, we have to start at the beginning. This all started in a small town called Brookfield, Connecticut. It was a sleepy little town with not much going on. In fact, until “The Devil Made Me Do It” case, there hadn’t even been a murder. The town is located northeast of New York City, and is technically part of the New York Metropolitan area. The town was established in 1788. So, not much was going on.

David Glatzel Was 11-Years Old

One of the most notable changes I saw in the movie was that they made David Glatzel younger. Of course, it’s more disturbing to see a young child get possessed by a demon. The choice obviously made David seem more innocent and more baby-like, which is meant to tug at our heartstrings. In real life, David was 11-years old.

Arne and Debbie Lived with Arne’s Family

Arne and Debbie actually lived with Arne’s mom and siblings. At the time, Arne’s mother was gravely ill with cancer. The couple were the main providers for Arne’s family and they were looking for a larger place to live to accommodate everyone.

Debbie Was Older Than Arne

Not that age is a big deal, but it’s worth it to take a look. Debbie was 26-years old and had been previously married and had a child from that marriage. Arne was 18-years old. For the time, an older woman living with a younger guy raised some eyebrows. When the couple first met, Arne was only 12-years old, which would have made Debbie around 20-years old.

Arne and Debbie Were Already Engaged

In the movie, Arne is about to ask Debbie to marry him, and even David is asking him when he’ll pop the question. In real life, the couple were already engaged by the time David was possessed.

David Met the Demon Somewhere Else

The movie makes it look like David became possessed in the Glatzel family home when everyone moved in. What is true is that the former tenants did leave a waterbed in the house. But the house that was the site where David met the demon was a different house. In July 1980, Arne and Debbie had just acquired rental property, and they went over to start cleaning it.

David said that when they arrived on the property, there was an old man that started terrorizing him and pushing him. Initially, Arne and Debbie thought that David made up the story to avoid cleaning. But then David said that the old man promised to harm the Glatzel family if they moved into the rental. The rental itself didn’t give Arne or Debbie much concern besides hearing footsteps above them.

What is troubling is when David saw the old man again, he had beast-like features, was uttering Latin, and threatened to steal his soul. But soon after, David started having night terrors, he had unexplained scratches and bruises, and he was starting to act strange.

There Was No Curse

One important detail to note is that there was no curse involved in “The Devil Made Me Do It” case. There were no occultists, there were no Disciples of the Ram, none of that is true. This was all created for the sake of the movie. If there is anything I want readers to get out of this blog, it’s that there was no curse…at all. However, the Warrens believed that the previous tenants of the house in question were into witchcraft and opened a door to the demonic and left it there when they moved. When David came into the house, he was the first to encounter the demon from the open portal.

David’s Behavior Was More Disturbing

Whatever had tormented David at the rental property followed him home. The Glatzel family decided to call a Catholic priest to bless the house. I know…it’s the 80s…mental health care back then isn’t what it is today. Anyway, the priest came to bless the house, but it didn’t work. The family told Debbie and Arne that their rental home was evil.

But the old man, now known as the Beast, followed them. David’s visions and odd behavior started happening in the day time as well. According to the Glatzels, David was being choked and beaten by unseen forces.

David started hissing, growling, and reciting passages from the Bible and John Milton’s Paradise Lost. He was also speaking in other voices. Members of the family had to start taking shifts during the night to watch David because he would have spasms and convulsions. Debbie and Arne moved in with the family to help them with David.

About 12 days after the original incident, the family or a man named Father Dennis called Ed and Lorraine Warren to investigate. So the Warrens came into the scene, and learned the Glatzels story, they concluded that he was possessed by multiple demons. Ed concluded that about 63 demons had possessed David.

David Predicted the Murder

According to my research, David went through three exorcisms. Lorraine said that David levitated in the air, and even demonstrated precognition abilities and predicted the murder that Arne Johnson would commit.

During one of David’s exorcisms, Arne apparently coerced one of the demons to possess him. He told the demon to “Leave his little buddy alone.” At this point too, Arne was working all day and staying with the Glatzels and helping them with David.

When the story was covered by the show, “A Haunting”, Arne said that one of the demons attacked him by taking control of his car and running it into a tree.This happened a few days after Arne coerced the demon to possess him.

After the car accident, Arne went back to the old rental property and examined the well that supposedly housed the demon. Arne made eye contact with the demon in the well, and apparently became full on possessed. This was also Arne’s last completely lucid moment before the murder.

The Warrens were not happy with this and apparently even warned Arne to not make eye contact with the demon. In the midst of all this, David wasn’t getting better. In October of 1980, the Warrens contacted the Brookfield police and told them the situation was getting dangerous.

Bruno Salls’ is Alan Bono in Real Life

Arne and Debbie decided it was time to move out of her mother’s house and into their own place. Debbie got a job at a dog groomer, which was owned by Alan Bono. He would also be Arne and Debbie’s landlord. Debbie and Arne got an apartment above her work. It didn’t take long for Debbie to notice that Arne was showing the same behavior as David.

Arne would also growl and hiss, go into a trance-like state, and then have no memory of it. So Debbie is thinking, “Crap, my man is possessed too.”

Multiple People Witnessed the Murder

Arne Johnson’s mother stands next to Lorraine Warren

On February 16, 1981, Arne called out sick from work. He was having stomach issues and not feeling well. He joined Debbie at the dog groomer, the kennel, with his sister Wanda and Debbie’s 9-year old cousin.

Alan Bono took the group to lunch, and he started drinking quite heavily. He insisted that Arne and Debbie drink too. After lunch, the group went to a pet shop to get supplies, and then went back to the kennel. Arne went up to the apartment to lay down.

Judy Glatzel, David’s and Debbie’s mom, called Debbie and told her something was wrong and to get to her house immediately.

Alan Bono was at the kennel and was still drinking. Debbie couldn’t leave work right away but assured she would take everyone over for dinner. But Bono wanted the group to stay for dinner.

Here’s where details get fuzzy. So Debbie took Mary and Wanda to get pizza, but she said she would be back quickly. It seemed that Debbie was sensing that something wasn’t right. When the girls got back from pizza, Bono was completely drunk and intoxicated at this point. Debbie wanted Bono to pass out in his apartment, so they set up the pizza in his kitchen.

The Murder Happened Outside

As Arne, Debbie, and the rest of the crew were getting ready to eat, Bono had become belligerent. The group was trying to leave and Bono wouldn’t let them leave. Debbie told everyone to leave the room.

But Bono was able to grab Mary and wouldn’t let her go. Arne ran into the room and told Bono to let Mary go. Mary gets away and runs to the car. At this point, this debacle had made its way outside of the kennel.

It was reported that Arne had two voices coming out of him, and at this point, he was no longer Arne. Wanda is trying to pull Arne away from Bono as Debbie is standing in the middle to try to mitigate the situation.

Arne gets out a 5-inch pocket knife and stabs Alan Bono in the chest. Bono died a few hours later in the hospital. Arne managed to get away and was found about two miles away. Supposedly, Debbie and Wanda didn’t actually see Arne stab Bono.

Lorraine Contacted the Police the Day After the Murder

This was the first murder to happen in Brookfield, Connecticut. So, the day after the murder, Lorraine Warren contacts the police and tells them that this isn’t Arne’s fault.

She said that Arne was possessed at the time he committed the murder. The Warrens also fueled the media frenzy that surrounded this case. Even the agents for the Warrens promised movie deals, books, and interviews would soon follow. Basically, it became a media circus, thanks to the Warrens.

Arne’s Lawyer Wasn’t Allowed to Use the Demon Defense

The trial started October 28, 1981. Arne’s lawyer, Martin Minnella, decided to run with this possession idea. Minnella was getting calls from all over the world about this case.

He even went to England to talk to two lawyers who had similar cases, even though they didn’t go to trial. He also wanted to fly in exorcism specialists and even subpoena the priests who oversaw David’s exorcism. Arne entered a plea of not guilty by reason of demonic possession.

The judge, Robert Callaham, rejected Arne’s plea and defense, so his possession could not even be a factor in this trial. Callahan said that there’s no way that this defense could even be used because there’s no way to scientifically prove it and there was no evidence to support it. So, Minnella decided to say that Arne acted in self-defense.

The jury deliberated over three days for 15 hours, and Arne was found guilty of first-degree manslaughter on November 24, 1981. He was sentenced to 10-20 years in prison. Arne got himself out of prison thanks to his good behavior and being a model prisoner. He got his GED, took college classes, and he took the time to get his life together. Arne married Debbie in 1984, and they remained married until her recent death from cancer.

But he only served five years. So, what happened to the demon that was possessing Arne?

The Demon Continued to Haunt Arne & David After

In Gerald Brittle’s book, “The Devil in Connecticut” he said that the Diocese in Canada intervened and did a proper exorcism on Arne. I guess the priests that oversaw David’s exorcism didn’t do a thorough job. According to Brittle, the demon still haunted David and Arne. He alleges that the demon haunted Arne while he was in prison.

There Was a Lawsuit Years Later

When “The Devil in Connecticut” was republished in 2006, David Glatzel and his brother Carl, Jr. sued Brittle and the publishers for invasion of privacy, libel, and “intentional afflictions of emotional distress.”

Carl claims that David was mentally ill at the time. Also, David’s father, Carl, Sr. claimed that he never said his son was possessed. Psychiatrists looking at David’s case at the time also said he wasn’t possessed, but instead, had a learning disability.

He also said that Ed and Lorraine Warren made up the story to exploit his family and profit from their pain and suffering. Here’s what’s really messed up, if it’s true. Carl also claims that the Warrens told the family that if they went along with this, they would make a ton of money.

Lorraine stuck to her story and said that she, Ed, and six other priests agree that David was possessed. However, while the Diocese of Connecticut confirmed they were helping David through a difficult time, they did not confirm any exorcisms or anything about possession.

Carl said that the media circus, the books, the made-for-TV movie forced him to drop out of school, he lost friends and business opportunities. The book, “The Devil in Connecticut” also made him look like the bad guy. Gerald Brittle claims that he wrote the book because the family wanted the story told and was based on claims made by the Warrens. To this day, Carl claims the whole thing was a hoax.

Moving Forward

Arne Cheyenne Johnson on “A Haunting”, Episode: “Where Demons Dwell”

According to a few different sources, Debbie Glatzel was involved with the filming of The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It before her recent death. Arne and Debbie had other media opportunities after the court case. A made-for-TV movie called, “The Demon Murder Case”, starred Kevin Bacon as Arne. As mentioned earlier, the couple was also featured on an episode of “A Haunting” in the episode, “Where Demons Dwell.”

To put it bluntly, this is an incredible story with lots of layers.

Sources

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/25/nyregion/the-region-man-is-convicted-in-friend-s-death.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20080829012011/http://www.mmdnewswire.com/brors-sue-world-fmous-psychic-lorrine-wrren-for-flse-ccustis-in-devil-book-2347-2.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/23/nyregion/defendant-in-a-murder-puts-the-devil-on-trial.html

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-250-arne-johnson-20140412-story.html

https://apnews.com/article/c758c33ba4756f757e1dfec4f0abd39e

https://books.google.com/books?id=VsmvAAAACAAJ

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a36529802/conjuring-3-true-story-arne-johnson-now/

She’s Got Nothing to Prove: Being a Woman in Fandom

June 4, 2019 Alex Matsuo1 Comment

This past weekend, I spent time with wonderful people at ConCarolinas 2019/Deep South Con 57.

I did something I had never done before. I got emotional during a panel.

The panel was “She’s Got Nothing to Prove” and I was one of several amazing women who participated.

Being a female in fandom is a wonderful thing…for the most part. It wasn’t always that way, and in some ways, it *still* isn’t that way.

My first exposure to the geek world was when I was a wee little tyke and a very dear member of my family was a Trekkie. I remember watching the original Star Trek (TOS) and The Next Generation. Well, I more so remember flashes of scenes and moments. I didn’t really understand what I was watching.

In elementary school, I fell in love with Power Rangers. But I didn’t play Power Rangers with the boys at school. If I did, I couldn’t be Jason, Billy, or Zack. I couldn’t even be Kimberly or Trini because I wasn’t pretty or I didn’t look Asian enough. Such as life and finding my identity. Anyway, that was light. It was easier for me to simply join the other girls and say that Power Rangers was done and then run home after school to watch.

Flash forward to 2000 and 2001. My grandmother had recently died and we were going through things in her house. My mom and I had found boxes and boxes of VHS tapes that my grandpa had made from a friend. Most of my earliest Disney movies were made from homemade VHS tapes…meaning…they were counterfeit (sorry, Mickey). Among this collection were the original episodes of Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation. For the latter, at least the episodes until my grandpa died. My grandmother watched the show too but not to the extent as my grandpa. He was a big fan of Roddenberry. While I don’t know why, I can imagine the connection of being in the Army in World War II, interracial kissing (my grandparents were an interracial couple), and the incredible vision and storytelling of the shows.

Anyway, I was a cheerleader in high school, and very much into anime like Sailor Moon and recently discovering InuYasha on Toonami. I found these VHS tapes and started watching. I wanted to connect with my grandpa more and explore something that he enjoyed.

I didn’t really know anyone who was into Star Trek besides my first high school boyfriend (he was more or less annoyed with me about it). I took to the message boards to try to connect with others. This was early 2000’s message board activities, so I wasn’t very conscientious about hiding my identity.

In short, one of the Star Trek fans I knew in real life l was able to identify me and told his fellow Trekkies. These guys identified themselves as Trekkies and will use that terminology moving forward.

At first, he and his two other friends seemed excited that a cheerleader was interested in Star Trek. They entertained my questions and geek outs over episodes they bragged about watching dozens of time. I didn’t really want to self-identify as a Trekkie,Trekker, or even a Star Trek fan so publicly. This was mainly because I didn’t know who I was. Isn’t that just high school in general?

However, they also grilled me on content that I frankly didn’t keep track of. I was expected to become an encyclopedia of all things Star Trek. I didn’t measure up, and I had to pay the consequences.

Without getting into too much detail, I got bullied by the bullied. I was touched in ways I didn’t want to be touched. But I “owed” these guys because they had “wasted” time on me. I wasn’t a true Trekkie. In their eyes, I misled them and I had to be punished.

I was also dealing with a breakup and other issues surrounding that. After it was over, I remembered looking at his Star Trek keychain and just screaming at it and crying. Mom and I packed up the Star Trek VHS tapes and put them back into the closet, never to be watched again. It would be another six or so years before I would even watch another episode of Star Trek.

As mentioned earlier, I got emotional telling this story. I also felt really bad telling this story because there were people dressed in Star Trek costumes, and I knew there were several fans in the audience. I’m not blaming this on fans, trekkers, or Trekkies. I’m blaming three teenaged boys who didn’t have an outlet for their anger and they took it out on me. They wanted me to feel as bad as they did.

And it worked.

I told my mom what happened. She decided to just keep it quiet and told me to do the same. I never went to any sort of therapy, and it honestly built up so much anger in me. I blamed myself for being so stupid and trusting. I felt like I didn’t belong anywhere.

I learned my lesson. In the future, I kept my identity hidden on message boards and other online communities. If anyone did find my “real” name, it was assumed I was a male, and therefore safe. Other women I know were not as lucky.

This wouldn’t be the first time I dealt with gatekeepers of various fandoms. I was honestly terrified of reaching out into another community of fandom because of my Trekkie experience. Luckily, I was able to connect with wonderful people to contribute to my healing. From Star Wars to Disney, to anime, Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, etc., I’ve learned that you’re allowed to enjoy things even if you’re new. We all start somewhere.

This also stretches far outside into other areas like gaming. I think GamerGate burst open the fact that women are not only being shamed for liking a certain fandom or playing a game, but also they are being doxed, harassed in real life, and being threatened on a daily basis. This underground issue became a very public crisis and put the spotlight on the world of gaming. If a woman has some cleavage while live streaming, she’s automatically labeled as a slut or getting attention for the wrong reasons because she isn’t smart enough.

But gatekeeping isn’t just a male issue. It is a societal issue.

Since being a “geek” or a “nerd” is much more accepting and, dare I say, trendy these days, I see a few different reactions to it all.

The geeks who have been in it for decades and are now annoyed with the newbies.
The women who were shamed for liking something and then feeling the hurt when a new and “prettier” girl embraces their fandom and gets more attention.
The new geek who doesn’t understand the trials the veterans experienced being a geek and trivializing their struggles.

Lately, I’ve been trying to embrace the idea of letting people enjoy things.

You don’t have to be an encyclopedia of facts to enjoy the fandom.

Do respect the people who have been there before you. If they’re willing to chat, pick their brain on how they got to where they are today. They might also be trying to process this newfound acceptance of their geekdom.

Women are constantly trying to prove themselves, their credibility, and their worth in the world of fandom. It can be really hard, especially when we’re asked to quote specific lines from movies, remember what color a character wore from a Christmas special, or show off their collectibles and then meet with aghast when said collection isn’t impressive.

The fact that there are numerous articles on how to be a “proper” fan in various fandoms is nothing short of ridiculous. The fact that there are posted lists on phrases you have to use in everyday conversation to prove you are a fan that was just recently written proves we have a long way to go.

Granted, I also have to remember the quality of people who are making our lives a living hell for doing what we love, watching what we love, and playing what we love.

Can a female just enjoy things without forcing her to prove herself?

Can we just let people enjoy things?

Slender Man Movie Review: False Advertising & Wasted Potential

August 10, 2018 Alex Matsuo

The newest “Slender Man” (2018) movie was released last night. I don’t normally write reviews unless I feel inspired to do so. Sometimes this is a good thing. In this case, it wasn’t. I have been fascinated by the Slenderman (Slender Man?) phenomenon for quite a while. I’m not even talking about the subsequent crimes that took place by mentally ill teenagers. I’ve been fascinated by the idea of how legends can be created so quickly and go viral thanks to the innovation of the internet.

One of my side jobs is being a writer for TheRichest. I had the awesome chance to write a script about Slenderman before the new movie came out. You can check it out here. I recommend watching this before or after you see the movie, because frankly, the real story is more interesting than what the movie portrayed:

Now that we’re on the same page, here are my thoughts on the new “Slender Man” movie.

It was a huge disappointment. It had amazing source material to draw from, and it failed on epic levels. If you don’t want spoilers, then I recommend you stop reading now.

My first major issue with it was the movie dragged. There wasn’t a lot of meat to this movie at all, and it seemed like the writers didn’t have a lot to work with. The result was every mediocre action was dragged out much longer than it should have. There were moments where the pace picked up, usually with when SM made an appearance or attacked, which didn’t happen often. The movie felt like 3 hours when it was about an hour and thirty minutes.

My second issue is how the world was built. It started okay, but then it went downhill from there. First off, you summon Slender Man by watching a video on the Internet. Once I saw this, I immediately thought of “The Ring”, but this concept wasn’t as well executed. But an online video? Sure. I suppose one could argue that since SM was born from the internet, then it would make sense. But, there is a plot hole that derails this theory later on in the movie. One of the characters, named Wren, goes to the library to do more research on SM and finds that his origins and child-stealing activities could even date back to him being the Pied Piper. If you can only summon SM from an online video, how does that explain his child-stealing activities before we had the internet?

After the first girl , Katie, disappeared, there was some scratching the surface on potentially having the father involved, or at least aware of some occult activities. But that is never revisited again.

The mystery girl who the characters chatted with online was never fully explored besides a follow-up news article that she went nuts. How did she know so much about SM? Was her mind being controlled by SM? Why didn’t the character speak to her more since she was so knowledgeable? Another plot hole that wasn’t further explored.

The biggest thing that bothered me was that the main character were incredibly whiny and weak. When Katie first disappears, all they can question is whether it was SM. At first, they are proactive in trying to find their friend as they deal with their own nightmares and hallucinations. Then, that drive wanes off for two of the characters. When Wren tries to do more research, she comes across a theory that SM is bioelectric, and he is using that bioelectric energy to break down the minds of his victim. Again, this was interesting, but once again, unexplored. There was no attempt to really try to STOP Slenderman from his ghastly agenda. Hallie (with the last name Knudsen in honor of the creator of SM, Eric Knudsen/Victor Surge), doesn’t seemed to be bothered trying to figure out what’s going on despite having her own SM sightings. All the while denying things were going on and trying to explain everything. If her sightings were trivial and debunkable in the movie, that would be one thing, but she was having full-out sightings and intense nightmares. And yet, that didn’t drive her to do more? Her love interest, Tom, also ends up watching the video. All we see is that he’s shaken up coming into class sometime after with bruises on his arm. Again, this plot point is not revisited.

Given that Slenderman has no real canon besides what people on the internet have conjured up, this movie had the potential to bring something new and fresh to the legend. Unfortunately, this fell incredibly short. As mentioned in my video, it would have been cool to explore the idea that is was US who created Slenderman through collective thought. Then, the girls go into this whole thing of trying to get people to STOP thinking about Slenderman, which of course, would never happen. It seemed that the girls were doomed from the beginning because they didn’t do anything to try to stop him. The movie dragged on and on with questions on what SM was, their boring nightmares, and trying to brush it off as if it were nothing.

There was also no violent crimes mentioned or even performed in this movie. I assume it was for the respect and sensitivity to the crimes that Anissa Weier and Morgan Geyser committed in 2014. There were a few other SM crimes that year as well. However, the movie could have done something…like a desperate attempt by one of the girls to try to save herself?

Why do I have “false advertising” in the title of the review? Let’s get into that.

Also, if we look at the original trailer, there were plot points brought up in the trailer that didn’t make the cut in the movie:

The part where Chloe stabs herself in the eye doesn’t make the cut. Instead, she gets visited and choked by Slender Man and becomes catatonic. The girl writing, “Can you see him?” seems to be the mystery chatter from the beginning of the film. But this is a scene we never see. Also, we never see a girl walking out of the woods, to be greeted by police cars. It looks like the mystery chatter again. AGAIN. Why wasn’t this plot point explored? We also never see the guy taking his own life by jumping off the roof. It looks like they had planned for maybe a more violent movie and then postponed the release from May to August to completely change the movie? It would make sense as to why we got this final product. However, the movie that the official trailer sold to us was not the final product that we received in the theater.

Screen-Shot-2018-01-03-at-10.16.09-AM — See this scene? You won’t see it in the movie.

At the end, SM is the winning champion of the movie, as the girls (predictably) falter and join him in the other world. The most interesting part of the movie is the last 10 minutes. But even the last shot of the movie was mediocre and boring as it showed a school hallway. It definitely left you feeling a void of wasting 90 minutes of your life on wasted potential.

“Lights Out” 2016 Review: Scares & Mental Illness

July 21, 2016 Alex Matsuo

Tonight, I had the pleasure of seeing the movie, “Lights Out.” I’ve been a horror movie buff since I was a kid. I love scary movies, especially paranormal ones about ghosts, demons, and other creatures that go bump in the night. I do like the slasher movies as well, but paranormal suspense has a special place in my heart.

I became a HUGE fan of director David Sandberg back in 2013 when he released the short film, “Lights Out – Who’s There”, which starred his wife, Lotta Losten. While the film was only 3 minutes, it was enough to scare the bejesus out of me and dread touching the light switch. The short caught the attention of James Wan (Saw, The Conjuring 1 & 2, Insidious), who ended up producing the movie.

If you’re not familiar with the short film, take a (literal) few minutes and watch it here:

[vimeo 82920243 w=640 h=360]

Lights Out – Who’s There Film Challenge (2013) from David F. Sandberg on Vimeo.

Now let’s talk about the movie. The premise of the movie is that adults can have imaginary friends too. I didn’t realize how much this added to the creep factor until seeing the movie. If anything, the movie shows that adults can be more destructive than children when it comes to those sinister friends that [we think] no else can see.

I don’t want to give away spoilers, but I also thought how the movie touched on mental illness was handled with care, and also presented a forewarning. That forewarning is that the more we dwell on our condition, stop taking medication, shut out those who love us, and ignore the fact that there’s a problem, will cause one to descend into a downward spiral of losing the battle to that illness. That hit me personally, as I struggle immensely with depression and anxiety, and will often stew in my own negativity regardless of whose around me. I haven’t reached the point where I was forcing those around me to accept this as is like Sophie (played by Maria Bello), but there is a hard lesson learned. I was impressed with Teresa Palmer’s performance, and Alexander DiPersia was not only pretty to look at but played the concerned and protective “boyfriend” very well. The standout for me was little Gabriel Bateman who played Martin, and pretty much would reflect my actions should I ever be in a similar situation. Flashlights and candles…and lots of them!

These lessons aside, the movie was great for scares. I jumped several times throughout the movie and found myself saying “Aw heck no” to myself during the even scarier parts. The script is simple, the movie is a little short, and the characters are few. But this makes for a fairly solid horror film as it cuts right to the chase and focuses on the meat of the story rather than embellish it with the bones. It was also cool to see Lotta Losten make her cameo at the beginning of the movie.

In closing, the movie is worth the price of the ticket, and a night or two of sleeping with the lights on.

Ghostbusters 2016: My Review

July 17, 2016 Alex Matsuo

It seems that my thoughts on the latest “Ghostbusters” movie has been waited on with bated breath! I will also say that this is one of the rare times that I have made an effort to see a movie on opening weekend. I did this mainly for the fact that I didn’t want to wait to see the movie, and the two “Ghostbusters” movies are my absolute favorites. In other words, I’m a “Ghostbusters” fan girl. Yes, I’m a paranormal investigator and I love “Ghostbusters.”

First, are any of the “Ghostbusters” movies true to actual paranormal investigating? Of course not. There are a few nods to the actual practice of ghost hunting, but it’s an exaggerated portrayal to what we actually do. No, there are no proton packs. No, we can’t actually contain a real ghost. No, we don’t have the uniforms. We have t-shirts, but not the suits.

"Ghostbusters" 2016 - Columbia Pictures — “Ghostbusters” 2016 – Columbia Pictures

Okay, now that we have that out-of-the-way, I want to say this: THIS MOVIE IS AWESOME! When it was first announced that there would be a reboot of the classic movie with an all-female Ghostbusters team, there was massive skepticism. I will admit that I was uneasy about the idea. After I saw the trailer, which featured a lot of slapstick comedy, I became a little more excited, but I was still worried that the movie wouldn’t meet my expectations. Already, women in the paranormal field have a really hard time, and female-driven movies have a hard time in the entertainment industry as it is.

Let me tell you that this movie is fantastic. While it is a reboot, it is unique all on its own. There are cameos from the original “Ghostbusters” cast, and there are enough nods to the original that satisfied my inner fan girl. I got a little choked up seeing Egon’s cameo, but I won’t spoil it for anyone. It was refreshing to see Melissa McCarthy in this strong lead, as well as see Kristen Wiig and Leslie Jones. But the standout star to me was Kate McKinnon, who was the perfect blend of Egon and Venkman. I can’t forget Chris Hemsworth as the HILARIOUS receptionist who isn’t the brightest crayon in the box, but he is so adorable and endearing that you can’t help but love him.

In other words, go see this movie! It is worth your ticket price and your time. Whether you like the paranormal or not, you will be entertained and talking about the movie long after you come home from the theater.

Also, make sure you stay through to the end of the credits. There is an end credits scene that will make any longtime Ghostbusters fan squeal with delight!

What did you think of the movie? Let me know in the comments and vote in the poll!

[polldaddy poll=9472690]

Buffy Film vs. Buffy TV

June 9, 2012 Alex Matsuo

After being an avid viewer of the television series in my high school days, I was excited to venture into this project of comparing “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” in it’s two very different elements of the television series and the film. The show’s creator, Joss Whedon, wrote the film. But Whedon was not pleased with television producers making changes to the movie. Whedon originally wanted the film to have the darker and more dramatic element (that we see now in the series) and it was turned into a film with over the top acting and outrageous effects and comedy. There are notable differences between the film and the series, such as costumes, the character of Buffy and overall theme and feel of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”.

In the film, the vampires are pale, have pointy ears and have fangs. They still look human, and they don’t have a reflection. They fit more into the stereotypical look of a vampire from a cartoon. In the series, the vampires change their faces when they get ready to fight and/or feed and look very demonic. In the film, Merrick (the Watcher) is dressed in a trench coat and hat and would stand out in a crowd based on his outfit. It’s very detective looking. In the series, besides being British, Giles would blend into a crowd and doesn’t make much of a stir among other people and playing the role of a school librarian.

The character of Buffy differs as well. Movie Buffy has skills in gymnastics and has really corny catch phrases that she says throughout the film. TV Buffy is shown to have extraordinary strength. Also, in the series, Buffy’s identity is known throughout the vampire community and she is trying to hide from being discovered. It is already a known fact of who Buffy is and thus, they tend to avoid her. But in the film, Merrick warns Buffy to keep her identity a secret in order to protect herself because the vampires will track her down. In the film, there is also a note of the “mark of the slayer”, where it is not mentioned in the series. Movie Buffy also experiences pain, or something similar to cramps when there is a vampire around her. In the series, Buffy seems to have an intuition of who is undead and who isn’t. In the film, Buffy is a senior in high school and in the series, Buffy is a freshman in high school. The series mention the burning down of the gym at Hemery High School, but in the actual film, the gym is not seen being burnt down but instead filled with vampires.

Overall, besides having the same writer, the film and the television series are two completely different entities. Joss Whedon was disappointed with the film and the way it turned out. His vision for Buffy was better seen in his development of the television series, which took off five years later after the film came out. Whedon was able to bring his true vision of Buffy to the public and it became a huge success, while the original film still collects dust in our movie shelves.

My Thoughts on Julie Taymor’s The Tempest

January 1, 2012 Alex Matsuo

I got a late Christmas gift. After missing out on seeing Julie Taymor’s The Tempest due to an extremely limited theatrical release, a dear friend of mine gifted the DVD for me for Christmas. The anticipation of seeing this film has been building for well over a year now. I enjoy film adaptations of Shakespeare because there are so many possibilities for the text to change and come alive on the screen. And now with the latest technology breakthroughs of visual effects, the possibilities are endless. When I first got wind of the Taymor’s film adaptation, I was excited. When I found out that Prospero, typically a strong male role, would be changed to Proserpa, a female role, I was thrilled. And then, when I got confirmation that Helen Mirren would be playing Prospera, I was ecstatic. I had been in a performance of The Tempest where Prospero was played by a woman and therefore, always open to the idea. I realize that there are many qualms regarding this, but what I advise is that one should remain open to the change. Love it or hate it, but always give it a chance. You may be surprised at what you may end up liking it and perhaps even fascinated at the newfound ideas and messages it may convey.

Shakespeare is a topic that I care about intensely. I don’t watch adaptations just once. My private process, as nerdy and presumptuous as it may come across, includes watching the film once with no play in hand and a very basic understanding of the idea and concept behind the film. Then, I’ll take note of my initial reactions and questions, and with that in mind, I will look up any articles or documentaries discussing the process in further details (how, what, why, when). Then, I will consult the original script if there’s any dramatic changes that stand out. Then I will watch the film again with the play in hand, and making more detailed notes. Hey, I figure if I ever do an adaptation of Shakespeare and I need to cut something, it’s not a bad idea to see what others have done. Then I will watch the film with commentary, take notes again. And finally, I will watch the film after all the extra little details and knowledge in hand and just enjoy the film and reap the benefits of all that extra research I’ve done. I know. I’m a nerd. And believe it or not, what I do just skims the surface. I could go into the background of certain acting styles and processes, design elements, etc. By the way, this blog will be filled with many spoilers. If you read something and I…spoiled…it for you, read at your own risk.

I completed my first viewing with mostly positive reactions. The set of the film was a beautiful combination of nature and man-made imagery. Miranda ran through about four different types of ground (rock, grass, sand, dirt). It was stunning. Now, the first thing that stood out to me was the editing of the text. Of course, with Mirren playing Prospera, the changes are necessary, (ie. Lord to Mum, he to she). But “Master” stays just that….Master. Mistress wouldn’t be an appropriate change anyway, even though the syllable would keep the line consistent and the gender change would imply that the line has to change. Taymor took an extra step and embellished the back story to be more appropriate and I applaud her for making the back story better fit the context of her adaptation. Prospera was married to the Duke of Milan and she studied the sciences and the art of magic. When her husband died, he left his dukedom to his wife, and Antonio accused her of witchcraft. Hence to Prospera beign disposed of. Gonzalo’s aide remains consistent. This change to the back story adds another layer to The Tempest. Not to mention that this presents a threat to her gender and not just her as a human being. Throughout the film, Mirren is in pants, and it isn’t until she faces Antonio, Sebastian, Alonso, and Gonzalo, is she back in a dress and remains in that dress. Also another notable change was the cut of Iris, Ceres and Juno. That is alright though. It was never one of my favorite scenes. Not to mention the rearranging of dialogue had me raise an eyebrow a tad. Finally, the cut of Prospera’s final speech almost had me in outrage and the feeling of being robbed. However, I needed to calm down because in this film adaptation, I can understand why Taymor didn’t have Mirren deliver the speech. It wouldn’t have fit, in my humble opinion. As I watch the books float in the water during the final credits, I began to notice that the singer was singing the final speech. Taymor found a way to sneak it in. Interesting. This is not the only time a speech was turned into a song. Ferdinand’s speech was turned into a song, appropriately called, “O Mistress Mine”.

There were several actors who stood out to me. Helen Mirren was fantastic as she always is. I wish I could say more, but I enjoyed her Prospera and the underlying rage she kept inside and the softening of her character in the end. It was brilliant. The next actor that stood out to me was Ariel, played by Ben Wishaw. It was a brand new and thoughtful perspective of Ariel that I had never seen before. Ariel is often played playful with a side of anguish for his (or her) freedom. Wishaw took on a tormented Ariel, with stunning visual effects. Taymor was inspired by Brian Oglesbee, who is a photographer who worked on a water series and she brought him in to help with the film. The dialogue between Ariel and Prospera through the water is visually fantastic. There was a beautiful moment between Prospera and Ariel where Taymore let Ariel become physically manifested in act V, scene I.

And finally, Djimon Hounsou. Where do I even begin? His performance of Caliban moved me to tears. I’ve never sympathized much for Caliban and I’ve never really enjoyed certain performances where Caliban’s humanity was taken away and replace by a stereotypical monster. The Caliban in my mind was very much human, with human emotions. Hounsou brought my dream Caliban to life. If nothing else gets you to see this film, watch it for Hounsou. I suppose I should address Russell Brand’s performance as Trinculo. He was great, and the role suits him. Alan Cumming was…well…Alan Cumming. I admire Cumming’s work and I always enjoy him on screen.

Overall, I recommend this film to pretty much anyone. The delivery of the dialogue is especially well done and easy to understand (in my opinion though). I believe open-minded Shakespeare buffs will enjoy this film, while the purist Shakespeare buffs won’t enjoy it quite as much, I hope I’m wrong. It’s an interesting adaption well-worth watching and enjoying. The Tempest was Shakespeare’s final masterpiece and in a way, this play sums up all of his works and bids farewell to his audience with Prospero’s final speech. Elements of Taymor’s previous 1986 stage production (which used some fantastic puppetry) lived on in this film and she has wonderful ideas. I believe this film was not only well done, but it did this play justice.

Trailer:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDyGl2uIQ-Q]

A Farewell to Childhood

May 30, 2011 Alex Matsuo

Tonight, I finally saw Toy Story 3. I know…egads! That movie has been in theaters and to DVD. Why did I wait this long to finally see it? Lack of time. The usual excuse. So, get your freak outs out of your system that I didn’t see this movie sooner. Because that’s not what this posting is about.

Toy Story came out when I was around 9 years old. I remember seeing it in theaters and being in awe of the new animation I was seeing on screen. It was Pixar’s first hit. Anyway, I could totally relate to Andy and his toys. A few years later, Toy Story 2 came out and I saw that in theaters as well. It was okay. Not better than the original, but it was okay. The movies reminded me of my own relationship with my toys. Being an only child, you had to entertain yourself somehow.
Anyway, most of you who know me, know that I cry easily during movies. Well, let me rephrase that, I cry easily in certain scenarios. We all have “that movie” that makes us lose it. Movies such as Anna and the King, The Chipmunks Movie (specifically during the Mother song), The Iron Giant, The Green Mile, etc. The list goes on.
I wasn’t expecting Toy Story 3 to affect me the way that it did. I was a bit embarrassed since I was watching it with a friend. I made it through most of the movie without crying. The incinerator scene got me a tad emotional and thank God for the “Claw” line from the aliens to get me back to normal. But…the scene where Andy’s mom is in his room…that got me slightly started with a few tears. I didn’t realize it would be a warm-up to what was coming. When Andy is introducing his toys to Bonnie one by one, I started weeping. Then when he finally lets go of Woody, I was a mess. That scene went both ways. Woody was already in the “college” box getting ready to leave and the rest of the toys were going to go to Bonnie. But Woody let Andy go, and then Andy finally let Woody go.
And…here I start crying again just thinking about it, I suppose it’s all still fresh.
Then the last playtime with the toys. Beautiful scene. The final goodbye though had me in a huge mess. When Bonnie moves Woody’s hand to say goodbye to Andy, his reaction got me going (good job Pixar). Andy looks fondly at the toys one last time, he says, “Thanks, guys”…and I had to start wiping my eyes at a faster rate so I could see what was happening on the screen. Then Woody’s, “So long…partner” finished me.
So why did this movie make me the blubbering mess that writes this to you?
I remember saying goodbye to my own toys and donating them to charity. I still have my teddy bear that was given to me on the day I was born. When I was old enough, I named the bear, “Precious”. Precious went through all my surgeries with me growing up and even has the stitching to match my own scars. This film represented the final goodbye to my childhood. I’m sure there is a contrast between the children and the young adults who viewed this film, and I bet they saw two different movies. I remember there being a Facebook group regarding young adults telling the kids to move over since Toy Story was a part of our childhoods and we grew up with Andy and the franchise. For me, the film ended beautifully. It was the perfect closure to one of my favorite Disney stories while I was growing up.
Well, it’s after midnight and I’m exhausted from a day of doing nothing (yay days off!). So I shall close this post with a classic from my childhood.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB2gPZRsz0Q]