Support NeoGAF

[ryutaro's mama]

There's a TON of direct to video sequels that bear the name of the movie they are making the sequel to...in the end, the fans decide what is and isn't what they want.

The name it bears only goes so far.

If Ghostbusters remake is great, people will embrace it as part of the fold. If it isn't, then it becomes another failed reboot attempt...of the same name.

 

[Nekofrog]

There's a TON of direct to video sequels that bear the name of the movie they are making the sequel to...in the end, the fans decide what is and isn't what they want.

The name it bears only goes so far.

If Ghostbusters remake is great, people will embrace it as part of the fold. If it isn't, then it becomes another failed reboot attempt...of the same name.

But it'll still be an actual Ghostbusters movie.

 

[brandonh83]

Old cast returns. Passes the torch. Movie still sucks.

I can't believe they sold out...

 

[heliosRAzi]

But it'll still be an actual Ghostbusters movie.

In name only, if it turns out to be bad. Donnie Darko 2 is a Donnie Darko movie, but people barely acknowledge it. Same for the Starship Troopers movies. Or the Mask 2.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

In name only, if it turns out to be bad. Donnie Darko 2 is a Donnie Darko movie, but people barely acknowledge it. Same for the Starship Troopers movies. Or the Mask 2.

Donnie Darko 2 never got multiple threads and large amounts of vitrol aimed towards its director and cast.

 

[jstripes]

Old cast returns. Passes the torch. Movie still sucks.

I can't believe they sold out...

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

 

[border]

I don't know how you're "entitled" if you express disinterest in a remake, reboot, or crummy sequel.

I hate how this article and many of Rolfe's critics take this snotty tone of "Oh but why did he have to make a 6 minute video about it"? It's not as if 6 minutes of talking into a camera is some sort of monumental task for the YouTube generation, let alone someone who crowd-funded his own movie. Yet somehow there's this implication Rolfe is unreasonably obsessive and dogmatic about it because he took a few moments to organize and summarize his thoughts on the project.

He's a notably large figure in Ghostbusters fandom, and undoubtedly gets letters from his audience everyday asking his opinion on the reboot. That's why he made the video......not really hard to explain.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

AVGN gave me a few chuckles in high school, like ten years ago or whenever. Seeing him get called the embodiment of fanboy sexism when his problem was clearly of the fanboyish, Plinkettian "It's just different, and I don't like things that are different" vein has been very, very odd, and patently unfair.

Ghostbusters was really a perfect storm of fanboy entitlement, sexism, distrust of corporations making the casting choice look like marketers cynically pandering to a current zeitgeist, lack of involvement of the original cast and crew, and just horrendous marketing making the movie look like absolute shit.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Rolfe jumped into situation with a ton of vitriol being flung. It's a shame to see him get caught in it.

I'm not certain it's really a shame. I have a hard time believing he didn't know what he was doing when he volunteered to become the polite, politic face of this groundswell.

He's being engaged with on this level because he's the first person to volunteer to be the face of the disgruntled Ghostbusters fandom. And if he didn't consider that to be a possibility, then he's really naive. But I don't think that he is.

I wouldn't be surprised (there's evidence of it in some of the replies, honestly) if a lot of the "shock" at his backlash is coming because more than a few of his fans/subscribers really do identify with him on that level, too. He's their face. They like that he was polite. They like that he did that. So when he eats shit like he's eating, they take it more personally than they otherwise would.

That's that fandom ownership thing the articles talking about again.

(also, note how people are managing to express dissatisfaction with him to levels that are frankly "shocking" people in here, and then note his likes/dislikes ratio on his YouTube video, and then try to tell me that the disproportionate ratio on the Ghostbusters video is simply due to people honestly, genuinely not liking the content of the trailer)

So far as this weird "What's the definition of a Ghostbusters movie" sidetrack, I feel like that's sorta what's been going on over in the Star Trek Beyond thread (and a lot of Star Trek threads, as was touched upon a little upthread by SG). Fans will sometimes get so deep in their cups when it comes to ownership that they begin to disallow the possibility that the subject of their fandom could include bad things.

That protectiveness (that they shouldn't really be feeling since it's not really theirs) kicks in and they want to circle the wagons. They're like white blood cells who think unclean influences are sickening the body entire.

So instead of just copping to the fact the long-running series they're being hardcore fans of has shitty things in it, they start trying to redefine what it is, so that way anything that falls out of that definition can be freely kicked out - it lets 'em maintain that feeling of pride and fandom superiority.

But it's a bullshit definition. Bad Star Trek is still Star Trek. Bad Transformers is still Transformers. Bad Batman is still Batman. The quality of a thing doesn't change the basic facts of the things existence.

Bad Ghostbusters is still Ghostbusters. Being a snob and trying to disqualify some of it because it makes you feel better to pretend you're not a fan of shitty things (you are) doesn't actually disqualify it. It just invites frustration because you're never going to get people to agree that your headcanon is reality.

 

[brandonh83]

In name only, if it turns out to be bad. Donnie Darko 2 is a Donnie Darko movie, but people barely acknowledge it. Same for the Starship Troopers movies. Or the Mask 2.

It'd still be a Ghostbusters movie. It could be a bad one, but that wouldn't make it any less of one. The examples you went on to list, I would call those by what they are regardless of their quality or popularity.

 

[Nekofrog]

But it's a bullshit definition. Bad Star Trek is still Star Trek.

Voyager says hi

 

[Bronx-Man]

I'm not certain it's really a shame. I have a hard time believing he didn't know what he was doing when he volunteered to become the polite, politic face of this groundswell.

He's being engaged with on this level because he's the first person to volunteer to be the face of the disgruntled Ghostbusters fandom. And if he didn't consider that to be a possibility, then he's really naive. But I don't think that he is.

(also, note how people are managing to express dissatisfaction with him to levels that are frankly "shocking" people in here, and then note his likes/dislikes ratio on his YouTube video, and then try to tell me that the disproportionate ratio on the Ghostbusters video is simply due to people honestly, genuinely not liking the content of the trailer)

So far as this weird "What's the definition of a Ghostbusters movie" sidetrack, I feel like that's sorta what's been going on over in the Star Trek Beyond thread (and a lot of Star Trek threads, as was touched upon a little upthread by SG). Fans will sometimes get so deep in their cups when it comes to ownership that they begin to disallow the possibility that the subject of their fandom could include bad things.

That protectiveness (that they shouldn't really be feeling since it's not really theirs) kicks in and they want to circle the wagons. They're like white blood cells who think unclean influences are sickening the body entire.

So instead of just copping to the fact the long-running series they're being hardcore fans of has shitty things in it, they start trying to redefine what it is, so that way anything that falls out of that definition can be freely kicked out - it lets 'em maintain that feeling of pride and fandom superiority.

But it's a bullshit definition. Bad Star Trek is still Star Trek. Bad Transformers is still Transformers. Bad Batman is still Batman. The quality of a thing doesn't change the basic facts of the things existence.

Bad Ghostbusters is still Ghostbusters. Being a snob and trying to disqualify some of it because it makes you feel better to pretend you're not a fan of shitty things (you are) doesn't actually disqualify it. It just invites frustration because you're never going to get people to agree that your headcanon is reality.

Can we at least all agree that The Last Airbender never happened though? That's something that can unite humanity.

 

[jstripes]

I don't know how you're "entitled" if you express disinterest in a remake, reboot, or crummy sequel.

It becomes entitlement when you openly vocalize bitter resentment that it wasn't designed to your particular requirements.

Disinterest is another thing all together.

I'm not certain it's really a shame. I have a hard time believing he didn't know what he was doing when he volunteered to become the polite, politic face of this groundswell.

The smug "I'm not going to see this movie even if it is good" part doesn't help either.

Voyager says hi

Voyager is fan fiction that somehow got onto TV.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Voyager says hi

Nemesis and Final Frontier wave right back.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I'm not certain it's really a shame. I have a hard time believing he didn't know what he was doing when he volunteered to become the polite, politic face of this groundswell.

He's being engaged with on this level because he's the first person to volunteer to be the face of the disgruntled Ghostbusters fandom. And if he didn't consider that to be a possibility, then he's really naive. But I don't think that he is.

I wouldn't be surprised (there's evidence of it in some of the replies, honestly) if a lot of the "shock" at his backlash is coming because more than a few of his fans/subscribers really do identify with him on that level, too. He's their face. They like that he was polite. They like that he did that. So when he eats shit like he's eating, they take it more personally than they otherwise would.

That's that fandom ownership thing the articles talking about again.

(also, note how people are managing to express dissatisfaction with him to levels that are frankly "shocking" people in here, and then note his likes/dislikes ratio on his YouTube video, and then try to tell me that the disproportionate ratio on the Ghostbusters video is simply due to people honestly, genuinely not liking the content of the trailer)

So far as this weird "What's the definition of a Ghostbusters movie" sidetrack, I feel like that's sorta what's been going on over in the Star Trek Beyond thread (and a lot of Star Trek threads, as was touched upon a little upthread by SG). Fans will sometimes get so deep in their cups when it comes to ownership that they begin to disallow the possibility that the subject of their fandom could include bad things.

That protectiveness (that they shouldn't really be feeling since it's not really theirs) kicks in and they want to circle the wagons. They're like white blood cells who think unclean influences are sickening the body entire.

So instead of just copping to the fact the long-running series they're being hardcore fans of has shitty things in it, they start trying to redefine what it is, so that way anything that falls out of that definition can be freely kicked out - it lets 'em maintain that feeling of pride and fandom superiority.

But it's a bullshit definition. Bad Star Trek is still Star Trek. Bad Transformers is still Transformers. Bad Batman is still Batman. The quality of a thing doesn't change the basic facts of the things existence.

Bad Ghostbusters is still Ghostbusters. Being a snob and trying to disqualify some of it because it makes you feel better to pretend you're not a fan of shitty things (you are) doesn't actually disqualify it. It just invites frustration because you're never going to get people to agree that your headcanon is reality.

Whether he expected that reaction or not, the reaction, itself - to make him the face of something he pretty clearly is not - is still pretty disgusting.

 

[brandonh83]

The smug "I'm not going to see this movie even if it is good" part doesn't help either.

The worst thing is that everyone who says this, if they have the means, and the movie gets good word of mouth? They're gonna fuckin see it. I don't really give a shit if James sees it or not, he's perfectly entitled to do whatever the hell he wants. I'm just saying it's going to be a little amusing when he does watch it. And being so against something to the point where you let everyone know, even if you see it free or through Redbox or some shit you're still going back on your stance.

If you're gonna talk the talk... you know?

 

[MHWilliams]

But it's a bullshit definition. Bad Star Trek is still Star Trek. Bad Transformers is still Transformers. Bad Batman is still Batman. The quality of a thing doesn't change the basic facts of the things existence.

Bad Ghostbusters is still Ghostbusters. Being a snob and trying to disqualify some of it because it makes you feel better to pretend you're not a fan of shitty things (you are) doesn't actually disqualify it. It just invites frustration because you're never going to get people to agree that your headcanon is reality.

I think enjoying stuff that regularly reboots like Gundam and Kamen Rider means I'm just more apt to eating the shit with the good stuff.

Ghostbusters was really a perfect storm of fanboy entitlement, sexism, distrust of corporations making the casting choice look like marketers cynically pandering to a current zeitgeist, lack of involvement of the original cast and crew, and just horrendous marketing making the movie look like absolute shit.

This is the perfect storm I can agree with.

 

[heliosRAzi]

It'd still be a Ghostbusters movie. It could be a bad one, but that wouldn't make it any less of one. The examples you went on to list, I would call those by what they are regardless of their quality or popularity.

I would, too, but I usually end up forgetting they exist. For me and most people, there's only one Jarhead or Conan the Barbarian. If this movie turns out to be bad, when people say Ghostbusters, they will mean the 80s one.

 

[brandonh83]

I would, too, but I usually end up forgetting they exist. For me and most people, there's only one Jarhead or Conan the Barbarian. If this movie turns out to be bad, when people say Ghostbusters, they will mean the 80s one.

I know what you're saying, but even that doesn't strip away what it is. Eh, dude it's a pretty circular argument we're having about this, so I'm totally on board with agreeing to disagree, as they say. Or rather, I get what you're saying and I'm cool with leaving it at that.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

But it'll still be an actual Ghostbusters movie.

I have no clue what you are talking about.

I have never disputed the fact that the movie is named Ghostbusters. I gave clear examples why that doesn't always matter, especially when it comes to whether or not the buying public gives it a chance or not.

You continuing to remark how it is still a Ghostbusters movie does nothing to add what I am saying, since...that was never disputed.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Whether he expected that reaction or not, the reaction, itself - to make him the face of something he pretty clearly is not - is still pretty disgusting.

It's not that disgusting.

This article isn't making him the face of sexism (although it's suggesting there's some sexism at play that he might not be acknowledging, or trying to tiptoe around because he's trying to be very polite and politic about the whole thing), it's specifically making him the face of a disgruntled fandom with an overinflated sense of ownership.

Which he essentially volunteered to be.

All in all it's not a bad deal. He's only got 4800 dislikes on his YouTube video.

I mean, we're still pretending that metric is an honest appraisal of the public's appreciation of a YouTube video, right?

He's not righteously protesting

Yes, he is. It's the whole point. That he's doing it politely and even-handedly doesn't change what it is.

 

[border]

It becomes entitlement when you openly vocalize bitter resentment that it wasn't designed to your particular requirements.

I think that's just a bit slanted and dramatic way of putting it.....does Rolfe really seem that bitter or resentful? How is "This isn't really the Ghostbusters story I'm interested in" that dramatically different than "The new Robocop looks like crap" or "Gus Van Sant's Psycho is a stupid and worthless project"?

 

[heliosRAzi]

I know what you're saying, but even that doesn't strip away what it is. Eh, dude it's a pretty circular argument we're having about this, so I'm totally on board with agreeing to disagree, as they say. Or rather, I get what you're saying and I'm cool with leaving it at that.

I get what you're saying, too. No worries.

 

[Nekofrog]

I have no clue what you are talking about.

I have never disputed the fact that the movie is named Ghostbusters. I gave clear examples why that doesn't always matter, especially when it comes to whether or not the buying public gives it a chance or not.

You continuing to remark how it is still a Ghostbusters movie does nothing to add what I am saying, since...that was never disputed.

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but it came off to me as not leading to any particular definitive point. I should take a break.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but it came off to me as not leading to any particular definitive point. I should take a break.

I made a definitive point (that in no way called Ghostbusters Remake not Ghostbusters) several posts ago.

 

[Nekofrog]

I made a definitive point (that in no way called Ghostbusters Remake not Ghostbusters) several posts ago.

Yep. Juggling numerous replies to numerous different people in a fast moving topic like this, I made an error. Break time.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

It's not that disgusting.

This article isn't making him the face of sexism (although it's suggesting there's some sexism at play that he might not be acknowledging, or trying to tiptoe around because he's trying to be very polite and politic about the whole thing), it's specifically making him the face of a disgruntled fandom with an overinflated sense of ownership.

Which he essentially volunteered to be.

All in all it's not a bad deal. He's only got 4800 dislikes on his YouTube video.

I mean, we're still pretending that metric is an honest appraisal of the public's appreciation of a YouTube video, right?

This is not the only article about the man that has appeared. There's like half a dozen thinkpieces out there that take it for granted that what he REALLY has a problem with is women, and everything else is just longwinded bullshitting.

Also, this - "although it's suggesting there's some sexism at play that he might not be acknowledging, or trying to tiptoe around because he's trying to be very polite and politic about the whole thing" - is the kind of BS you can't really defend yourself against, or argue, because it insinuates something pretty horrible while simultaneously leaving indefinite room to backpedal if it gets any pushback. It's from the "have your cake, and eat it, too" book of rhetorical tactics.

 

[brandonh83]

My take on this is that nobody should really be calling him out or making a fuss about it. I may not agree with his perspective and like Bobby said, he probably knew exactly what he was doing. I think articles/think-pieces can cover this (not Rolfe, but rather the topic) without calling out individuals because all it does is draw too much attention to that aspect of the piece(s) and at that point it's easy for readers to point fingers every which way.

This can be discussed without even mentioning Rolfe. It's a much bigger picture than this one dude. If articles keep doing this, people are going to continue to miss the entire point of most things being discussed in relation to this clusterfuckian fiasco.

 

[Lothar]

The smug "I'm not going to see this movie even if it is good" part doesn't help either.

Yes, you should see every movie regardless of whether or not it appeals to you. To not do so would be smug. This is what you believe.

 

[border]

This article isn't making him the face of sexism (although it's suggesting there's some sexism at play that he might not be acknowledging, or trying to tiptoe around because he's trying to be very polite and politic about the whole thing), it's specifically making him the face of a disgruntled fandom with an overinflated sense of ownership.

The whole article has this frustrating undercurrent of "There's absolutely nothing sexist about the opinions expressed by Rolfe, but we can probably still assume he's a sexist in disguise, right?" This struck me as particularly backhanded:

But it’s more than a little depressing when passionate fandom and fan glorification allows anyone to become convinced that resistance to a Ghostbusters remake is a principled stand rather than sexist whining.

Yes, god forbid a person could assume someone's opinion is sincere rather than the result of deep-seated unspoken bigotry.

 

[Acorn]

Entitlement is my least favourite buzz word of the 2010s. Everything is entitlement, it's become the "I win" button of disagreements.

 

[Wereroku]

I think enjoying stuff that regularly reboots like Gundam and Kamen Rider means I'm just more apt to eating the shit with the good stuff.

This is the perfect storm I can agree with.

Kamen Rider is kind of a perfect way to look at it. There were some really shitty versions that fans didn't like in the showa era but there are still recognized as Kamen Riders. Just because you don't like something doesn't erase it from history. Currently Sony gets to decide what a ghostbusters movie is and they have decided this one is. Also I think it looks pretty ok and my lady is super psyched because she likes the cast and Feig's other movies.

Also wish we could get another direct sequel with Kamen Rider OOO and W were so good and Black RX showed it can work.

 

[truly101]

Ah, well this product bears enough similarity that I would reasonably call it a part of the set. Past that we're at pure opinion and preference I guess. This is remake that, given no name, I would reasonably guess it was "Ghostbusters". As an equal example, Arrow isn't the comics Green Arrow, but bereft the title, I could still reasonably guess it was an adaptation.

Right, and if this new Ghostbusters, Arrow, TR or Robocop had all the same accoutrements and not the known IP as some here have suggested, then they would be opening themselves up to ll kinds of copyright infringement litigation. Like you said an adaptation doesn't have to be note for note, but there are certainly enough hallmarks from the IP that it should be considered part of said franchise.

 

[NimbusD]

I think the backlash is pretty understandable...

Ghostbusters was not in anyway that I can recall a sexist movie. So you announce a new one, but its all about girl power rawr, and isn't it great, we are ghostbusters, but wait, GIRL ghostbusters!

Then you release some promo shit and its pure trash.

So you have taken a classic movie, turned it into some kind of empowering feminist piece, then made it bad.

Female ghostbusters to me doesn't really seem to be righting some wrong, its like they did it just for marketing... because they couldn't come up with a good movie.

Erm. Ok. So much to tear down here but i guess the simplest: So all male Ghostbusters is the default and taking no stance and then making it all female is by default "some kind of feminist empowering piece" and bad. What?

And the picture you posted of the female crew is somehow also bad. You really don't care for context do you? As if one, it's not a response to post like yours or much much worse, and two females on film crews aren't the norm and it's okay to take pride in being a handful of the few making a big budget Hollywood movie.

Like, I'm having such a hard time trying to find where your bad feelings are coming from.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

No he isn't. The point is to share his opinion

You're acting like an opinion can't ever be at the center of a protestation.

You're acting like an opinion isn't usually at the center of a protestation.

You're acting like the right to have an opinion somehow absolves the person giving it of having to hear it scrutinized, picked apart, confronted and rebutted.

The point of sharing his opinion wasn't to just "share his opinion" as a helpful heads-up to his fans, at least not solely. He was stepping forward to be the face of disgruntled Ghostbusters fans. That's what he did. Nobody asked him to do that, he just did it.

That he's eating some shit for it shouldn't be surprising, nor is it "disgusting," nor is the fact people are writing articles about him and calling the purity of his opinion into question "gross," that's how this works. Nobody speaking to an audience that big is going to get the benefit of the doubt about their intentions, ever. It's how anyone making any sort of semi-political statement is recieved. That he chose to get political over fuckin' Ghostbusters is weird, maybe. Silly, even. But that's what he did. There's inherent unfairness there, yeah, but then again, people seem to think it's even more unfair that Ghostbusters is getting remade in a manner they don't approve of.

Still less than 5k dislikes on a video seen 1.5mil times. So obviously the scandal here isn't that scandalous, if we're going by the fair and rational metric we've been asked to use for the Ghostbusters trailers themselves.

Looks like even if people make sideways insinuations that a low-level, even subconscious sexism might be at play, those insinuations aren't carrying all that much weight. Certainly no scarlet letter or anything similar.

 

[jstripes]

The worst thing is that everyone who says this, if they have the means, and the movie gets good word of mouth? They're gonna fuckin see it. I don't really give a shit if James sees it or not, he's perfectly entitled to do whatever the hell he wants. I'm just saying it's going to be a little amusing when he does watch it. And being so against something to the point where you let everyone know, even if you see it free or through Redbox or some shit you're still going back on your stance.

If you're gonna talk the talk... you know?

It's been two decades, and I still haven't seen Titanic.

Yes, you should see every movie regardless of whether or not it appeals to you. To not do so would be smug. This is what you believe.

If I think a movie looks dumb, and it turns out to be good, I'm willing to eat crow.

(Except for Titanic.)

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

You're acting like an opinion can't ever be at the center of a protestation.

You're acting like an opinion isn't usually at the center of a protestation.

You're acting like the right to have an opinion somehow absolves the person giving it of having to hear it scrutinized, picked apart, confronted and rebutted.

The point of sharing his opinion wasn't to just "share his opinion" as a helpful heads-up to his fans, at least not solely. He was stepping forward to be the face of disgruntled Ghostbusters fans. That's what he did. Nobody asked him to do that, he just did it.

That he's eating some shit for it shouldn't be surprising, nor is it "disgusting," nor is the fact people are writing articles about him and calling the purity of his opinion into question "gross," that's how this works. It's how anyone making any sort of semi-political statement is recieved. That he chose to get political over fuckin' Ghostbusters is weird, maybe. Silly, even. But that's what he did.

Still less than 5k dislikes on a video seen 1.5mil times. So obviously the scandal here isn't that scandalous, if we're going by the fair and rational metric we've been asked to use for the Ghostbusters trailers themselves.

Looks like even if people make sideways insinuations that a low-level, even subconscious sexism might be at play, those insinuations aren't carrying all that much weight. Certainly no scarlet letter or anything similar.

Look, I can say in a detached sort of way that, yeah, if you step into something heavily politicized and offer an opinion, you're going to get some heat. That doesn't make the people choosing to be the ones to burn him not assholes, however. They are, and deserve to be excoriated as such, and the fact that such behavior is not widely seen as unacceptable, whatever the particular ideological ax you have to grind, and in fact is roundly defended as somehow necessary to combat the inequities of the world, IS a pretty disgusting state of rhetorical affairs.

 

[brandonh83]

It's been two decades, and I still haven't seen Titanic.

I can't help your unfortunate Titanic situation, but Rolfe is too big a Ghostbusters fan to ignore this movie for the rest of his life. But where he's already signed the dotted lines, it's gonna be funny when he eventually sees it and comments on it-- which will happen. Hell, I'd be shocked if he doesn't see the fucker in theaters.

 

[Staccat0]

Well, crazy fandoms have been going on since Star Wars.

I mean really Franz Liszt had annoying fanz in the 1840s. I wonder if they got super wntitled starting with... Maybe Bob Dylan going electric?

 

[Skellig Gra]

I'm not even going to get in to the Ghostbusters minefield but I have found the Frozen "campaign" a little ridiculous. Let's leave the artists to create the art or else we're going to end up with another 50 shades of gray trilogy.

 

[Valkerionseven]

Hmm... had no idea people wanted to force a random Frozen lesbian sequel plot line... #internet I guess.

 

[jstripes]

I can't help your unfortunate Titanic situation, but Rolfe is too big a Ghostbusters fan to ignore this movie for the rest of his life. But where he's already signed the dotted lines, it's gonna be funny when he eventually sees it and comments on it-- which will happen. Hell, I'd be shocked if he doesn't see the fucker in theaters.

Yup. It's like a certain gatey thing. He's jumped on board to get new followers. Once the furor dies down, he'll say whether he liked it or not. (The optimist in me thinks he'll like it.)

I haven't lost respect for him, I'm just a bit disappointed that he's fuelling the fire.

Hmm... had no idea people wanted to force a random Frozen lesbian sequel plot line... #internet I guess.

Me either, but as someone with a Tumblr account (there's good art and design blogs), I'm not surprised.

 

[Monocle]

I'm not all that opposed to fans influencing the final shape of franchises as long as their ideas are actually good, and the creators have enough mettle to resist pandering when fan expectations are incompatible with their plans. Creators shouldn't feel beholden to fans. In this age of social media, they shouldn't necessary isolate themselves either.

I'm fine with anything that leads to a good result. Like, Elsa having a girlfriend would be fine. The way The Force Awakens harnessed nostalgia was mostly excellent.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

They are, and deserve to be excoriated as such, and the fact that such behavior is not widely seen as unacceptable, whatever the particular ideological ax you have to grind, and in fact is roundly defended as somehow necessary to combat the inequities of the world, IS a pretty disgusting state of rhetorical affairs.

This reads as really naive, though.

Especially considering the "inequities of the world" we're referencing here is a Ghostbusters remake. Or rather, specifically the bad trailers for a Ghostbusters remake. Not the film itself. Which nobody's actually watched yet. Which puts into interesting relief that such a spirited lament for the state of human discourse in the modern age is coming due to the (comparatively muted) backlash to the Angry Video Game Nerd, and not, say, any aspect of the two years worth of ill-will and mean-spirits directed at the film itself 4 minutes of footage we've seen in commercials.

That he's a big fan doesn't excuse him from response to his fan-fueled opinion that he volunteered to share with millions, and this article specifically speaks to that fannish overreach that applies not only to him, but a loud subset of many properties' fans. Essentially, fans are increasingly coming to believe their opinions on how things get made should be valued much more highly than they currently are, and that everything will be better if that happens sooner, and more often. It's not a great stance to take.

 

[border]

That he's a big fan doesn't excuse him from response to his fan-fueled opinion that he volunteered to share with millions, and this article specifically speaks to that fannish overreach that applies not only to him, but a loud subset of many properties' fans.

Videos on his Reviews channel typically get 300-400K views - his audience is not all that huge. I'm not sure why that means he willfully and rightfully became the spokeman/scapegoat for the factions warring over this film. He reviews the new Godzilla trailer on the same channel -- is he also now a spokesman for Godzilla fans?

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Videos on his Reviews channel typically get 300-400K views - his audience is not all that huge. I'm not sure why that means he willfully and rightfully became the spokeman/scapegoat for the factions warring over this film. He reviews the new Godzilla trailer on the same channel -- is he also now a spokesman for Godzilla fans?

That connection you're trying to make doesn't click though, because reviewing a finished work isn't at all the same as making a video solely to explain why you're so dissatisfied with a film's marketing and percieved direction that you're not even going to watch the film out of a sense of wounded fandom.

There's no straight line between those two actions.

His audience is big. This video has 1.5mil views (and less than 5k dislikes, btw), and there are 150 videos on his channel with a view count higher than that.

He became the spokesman because up until now, nobody had really stepped forward the way he did and put forth the argument the way he did as to why he wouldn't be watching the movie, and the reasoning is pretty much the reasoning used by a lot of people who complain about being ignored so as to chase the sexism angle instead of the merit angle.

So he's that voice now. He's the face of disgruntled Ghostbusters fandom. He volunteered for it. Nobody made him. Nobody asked him. He did a decent job of being very polite and politic about the whole thing, too.

Now hypothetically: if he had made a video about the Godzilla remake back in 2014, say he was upset or something because they made him think it wasn't going to be the man-in-suit sort of campy fun that a lot of Godzilla movies are, and he had very calmly and politely explained why he was not going to see this movie because he's not the kind of fan who just sees anything with the logo slapped on it (he's better than that, he likes Godzilla too much for that is the obvious implication) then you could say he was volunteering to be the face of disgruntled Godzilla fandom, because he's taking a fandom's arguments, and volunteering to present them to a sizable audience for them.

But he didn't. He went and watched the movie and talked about it.

Like he's fuckin' gonna do with this one.

Which makes his decision to make this video even more foolish.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

This reads as really naive, though.

Especially considering the "inequities of the world" we're referencing here is a Ghostbusters remake. Or rather, specifically the bad trailers for a Ghostbusters remake. Not the film itself. Which nobody's actually watched yet. Which puts into interesting relief that such a spirited lament for the state of human discourse in the modern age is coming due to the (comparatively muted) backlash to the Angry Video Game Nerd, and not, say, any aspect of the two years worth of ill-will and mean-spirits directed at the film itself 4 minutes of footage we've seen in commercials.

That he's a big fan doesn't excuse him from response to his fan-fueled opinion that he volunteered to share with millions, and this article specifically speaks to that fannish overreach that applies not only to him, but a loud subset of many properties' fans. Essentially, fans are increasingly coming to believe their opinions on how things get made should be valued much more highly than they curre ntly are, and that everything will be better if that happens sooner, and more often. It's not a great stance to take.

I don't mind him getting taken to task for being a fanboy moron. Anymore, I don't play video games, watch current Hollywood movies or TV shows, read comics, or do much of anything that forces me to cross paths with fanboys. But of course, this author didn't leave it at that, but had to take cheap, untrue potshots at the man, which both harmed their argument by distracting focus away from the particular point they were making AND contributed to a false perception of the contents of the video that has permeated the public sphere in the last week. It's the accusations and intimations of sexism, and the credulity this is given by so-called "progressives", in his case specifically, that has annoyed me, not the idea that internet fanboys are being accused of entitlement and creative coercion.

 

[border]

His audience is big. This video has 1.5mil views (and less than 5k dislikes, btw), and there are 150 videos on his channel with a view count higher than that.

The Cinemassacre Movie Reviews channel/playlist hasn't gone far above 400K for any video. I don't think it's entirely fair to compare that set of videos the to far more popular AVGN line. The Ghostbusters Trailer video only got to 1.5 precisely because two dozen websites decided to do thinkpieces on it -- it went viral not really through Rolfe's will alone.

He was hardly the first person to whine about Ghostbusters, and I think what made him a target was that he did it that was mostly personal, mostly reasonable, and difficult to assail. Since there are factions with a huge emotional investment in hating the film, those people elevated him. Since there are factions with a huge emotional investment in defending the film, those people saw him as their greatest threat and thought it necessary to mount some kind of takedown. The result is a video with more than 3 times any of his other trailer/film reviews.

That connection you're trying to make doesn't click though, because reviewing a finished work isn't at all the same as making a video solely to explain why you're so dissatisfied with a film's marketing and percieved direction that you're not even going to watch the film out of a sense of wounded fandom.

Now if he had made a video about the Godzilla remake back in 2014, after trailers that made him think it wasn't going to be the man-in-suit sort of campy fun that a lot of Godzilla movies are, and he had very calmly and politely explained why he was not going to see this movie because he's not the kind of fan who just sees anything with the logo slapped on it (he's better than that, he likes Ghostbusters too much for that is the obvious implication) then you could say he was volunteering to be the face of disgruntled Godzilla fandom, because he's taking their arguments, and volunteering to present them to a sizable audience for them.

I'm talking about the Godzilla Resurgence trailer review which is definitely not a review of a finished work. Herein he expresses similarly dogmatic opinions about what makes a "true Godzilla film" (must be man-in-suit, must not be CG), and openly laments that the film will receive zero promotion and distribution in the USA. As with Ghostbusters 2016, he seems concerned that Western audiences will only know/remember the slick CG Godzilla and not the more Japanese practical Godzilla.

By mere virtue of his actions, is now official spokesman for the Godzilla community, or does it take 1.5+M views to become that or what?

 

[Faddy]

I'm not all that opposed to fans influencing the final shape of franchises as long as their ideas are actually good, and the creators have enough mettle to resist pandering when fan expectations are incompatible with their plans. Creators shouldn't feel beholden to fans. In this age of social media, they shouldn't necessary isolate themselves either.

I'm fine with anything that leads to a good result. Like, Elsa having a girlfriend would be fine. The way The Force Awakens harnessed nostalgia was mostly excellent.

The nostalgic aspects of the Force Awakens was its only saving grace. And even with the plot already laid out from ANH it still doesn't hold together. It was just about good enough but the next one needs to be something new and good.

Of course there is a certain amount of fan entitlement but there is also creator responsibility as well particularly when picking up a beloved IP. Some films don't capture the spirit of the original works like Johnny Depp does weirdo versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice in Wonderland. Then you get other creators who want to sell their new movie using an old IP like Jaden Smith's karate kid. It was a decent movie but it had no greater relation to the original than it did to any other underdog tale.

And this is where the new Ghostbusters has a certain responsibility to fans of the franchise. It isn't just taking the name to cash-in like Karate Kid and it isn't a new imagining of a work like those Depp movies. It has taken the name and taken the imagery of the originals so while standing on the shoulders of all the people who created the originals it needs to pay respect to the style and tone of the previous films while still hopefully giving the audience something new. And entitlement goes both ways in situations like this. You can accuse the fans of being entitled for expecting some amount of pandering (or continuity) but the creator isn't entitled to be isolated from criticism if they screw it up. And that criticism is liable to be fiercer in Ghostbusters situation since all the groundwork had been previously laid.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

The Cinemassacre Movie Reviews channel/playlist hasn't gone far above 400K for any video. I don't think it's entirely fair to compare that set of videos the to far more popular AVGN line.

It's absolutely fair. There's no reason to make the distinction except to make it seem like the man doesn't really have the audience he does.

I'm talking about the Godzilla Resurgence trailer review which is definitely not a review of a finished work

I know what you're talking about. Which is why I highlighted the hypothetical that would have made him some sort of unofficial spokesperson for Godzilla fans in the same way he just became that for Ghostbusters fans. I addressed this in the post you're responding to. Dunno what else to tell you. Simply being a big Godzilla fan doesn't automatically make the scenarios one to one. The context is completely different, which you inherently acknowledge by way of your interpretation of his video as being some sort of catalyst in a fan civil war or whatever.

Of course there is a certain amount of fan entitlement but there is also creator responsibility

The idea that the creators have a responsibility to make pre-existing fans comfortable is fan entitlement.

It has taken the name and taken the imagery of the originals so while standing on the shoulders of all the people who created the originals it needs to pay respect to the style and tone of the previous films.

Not really. Plenty of remakes that don't really do that.

It's funny you brought up Karate Kid, which was a movie that worked completely well on its own, and can be argued was actually a better made, more emotionally involving movie than the original that it wasn't very much like at all.

Nobody's saying bad movies shouldn't eat shit. But there's a difference between criticizing a film because it fails at what it's trying to do, and criticizing a film because it's not what you would have done had you been placed in the driver's seat, or because you don't think it paid enough tribute to you and your fandom.