Support NeoGAF

[Bobby Roberts]

BobbyRoberts was Carvel.

That is, indeed, the ice cold deliciousness.

 

[wetwired]

Why did Ghostbusters resonate so much with the nerd community to where the movie became this holy grail of geek entertainment? Did it appeal to the mainstream?

I've mentioned it before but I don't think I've articulated it terribly well. Other beloved franchises have and numerous incarnations since their inception, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. Those incarnations have helped establish those franchises outside of their initial inception, showing their IPs are adaptable and more then their initial characters.

Now we have Ghostbusters which had 2 movies. Sure there's been comics, cartoons and video games but none of those are mainstream. We're in a position where not enough time has passed that the original actors are all dead (Addams Family reboot for example) or too old to reprise their original roles.

So we have 3 out of 4 of the main cast still alive and capable of starring in a "passing the torch" movie, but they couldn't make it happen, mainly because Bill Murray wouldn't agree to any scripts passed in front of him.

After years of development the studio bit the bullet and said "fuck it, reboot it" and moved on.

So we have a rebooted franchise in a time where a sequel/passing the torch film is expected but didn't eventuate PLUS we have this very limited definition of what Ghostbusters is and can be based on two previous films.

Ghostbusters can be much more than the first time films, the way the first film was set up makes it perfect for spin-offs and different takes. Peter mentions "The franchise rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams". To me that gives me ideas of massive potential for Ghostbusters, I'd love to see films take what Ghostbusters did for New York and apply it to other cities, Ghostbusters is a quintessentially New York film but I'd love to see the difference it makes moving to say LA or London even.

Those things could happen as a sequel to the original films but to a degree the reboot is playing it safe, sticking to new york and seemingly loosely retelling the Ghostbusters inception story. I am excited to see it but I'm hesitant on certain aspects of the film seen in the trailers, hopefully it's successful and we can start seeing Ghostbusters become more than what we all know based on a very narrow view of the two films we've seen thus far.

 

[Audioboxer]

When you've baked as much fucking cake as I have in this thread and so many people are just strolling by the beautiful towering bastards without even so much as running a finger along the frosting fuck yes I'm going to serve myself a slice with a smile and have fun with the inherent ridiculousness in a minority of posters here suddenly finding their long lost ability to clutch at pearls and catch the vapors after two-years worth of non-stop hostility and acrimony the second it's aimed at a guy who likes Ghostbusters a lot.

Guess what: I also like Ghostbusters a lot. I might even argue I like it more than most of you here in this thread.

Not that it actually matters how much I like it. Because it doesn't. It really doesn't factor in at all. Nor should it with Rolfe. His liking Ghostbusters a lot isn't really a great justification for his grandstanding bullshit, for reasons I've explained, very thoroughly, prior to this. It's not great justification for much of anything.

People being mean to him on twitter, going after his wife and kids, that's just as out of bounds as people being mean to Feig, McCarthy, Jones on twitter. People going out of their way to mean-spiritedly bring up his personal life or his appearance are just as shitty as people going out of their way to cack on McCarthy or Jones' size.

What's notable to me is that it's been two years worth of people very painstakingly going out of their way to make sure everyone looking understands that sexism is just a ghost (hah!) people are jumping at so as to make excuses for why people don't like the shitty marketing on display. They have had little-to-no problem with the sustained levels of nastiness, and have had even less problem minimizing it, and have seemed to thoroughly enjoy pretending they're being somehow persecuted for daring to be lone voices of reason demonized for nothing more than daring to be a guy who has a keen eye for cinematic quality.

And a small number of these same men are now (gasp! shock!) freaked out and utterly dismayed at the "sheer vitriol" being expended towards The Angry Video Game Nerd for his God-Given right to express his opinion honestly and even-handedly.

So again: What we seem to be dealing with here are a group of men who are very insecure about both their opinions, their regard for their childhood, and also (maybe primarily) the possibility they might be labeled as a sexist on the internet, and have decided the best way to counter that insecurity is to attempt to minimize (if not flat-out erase) the possiblity that sexism has anything to do with anything.

This is the double-decker cake that keeps getting wheeled in the way of fairly basic conversation about this film's marketing campaign

Which is, by the way, not great, could possibly point towards Paul Feig fucking the dog on this film, and wasting the talents of his cast and crew in a misguided attempt at modernizing both the tone and humor of Ghostbusters.

Note that I can say that confidently, without ever once having to suggest or even nod to the idea someone might think I'm sexist for saying that. I can dislike the marketing without prefacing that with any sort of worry about how people I don't know may percieve me on the internet, because I'm not at all insecure about my ability to explain my opinions, my standpoints, and am confident my reasoning will hold up when asked for it.

Insecurity is a motherfucker.

If it doesn't matter why did you open with this?

Guess what: I also like Ghostbusters a lot. I might even argue I like it more than most of you here in this thread.

Because literally no one in here, or even James was trying to argue they are a bigger fan than someone else, or even thinking to argue that. Just stating they are a fan and here is why...

a) Top movie
b) Childhood movie with past feels
c) *insert other reason that ISN'T I like it more than you guys*

That's all I really have to say... Although I will add, you and James both have the equal rights to share your opinions without horrible slandering. If you consider that and accept that, maybe you'll have an easier time with him saying it's his 4th top film of all time and letting him have a 6 minute opinion piece, in peace (outside of normal criticism of his opinion, not the sexist nonsense, which is what people on GAF do have issue with).

 

[Bobby Roberts]

If it doesn't matter why did you open with this?

To point out that it doesn't matter?

You literally quoted it. You quoted the whole thing, dude.

read it.

I swear to you I'm not making this hard. At all.

 

[brandonh83]

When you've baked as much fucking cake as I have in this thread and so many people are just strolling by the beautiful towering bastards without even so much as running a finger along the frosting fuck yes I'm going to serve myself a slice with a smile and have fun with the inherent ridiculousness in a minority of posters here suddenly finding their long lost ability to clutch at pearls and catch the vapors after two-years worth of non-stop hostility and acrimony the second it's aimed at a guy who likes Ghostbusters a lot.

 

[stufte]

Not that it actually matters how much I like it. Because it doesn't. It really doesn't factor in at all. Nor should it with Rolfe. His liking Ghostbusters a lot isn't really a great justification for his grandstanding bullshit, for reasons I've explained, very thoroughly, prior to this. It's not great justification for much of anything.

1. He doesn't need to justify his opinion to you or anyone else.
2. Complaining about grandstanding by grandstanding is weird, dude.
3. You may have explained your reasons, but it doesn't make them sacrosanct. Or correct.

 

[Audioboxer]

To point out that it doesn't matter?

You literally quoted it. You quoted the whole thing, dude.

read it.

I swear to you I'm not making this hard. At all.

Usually if something isn't worth saying it won't be said. You put it in for a reason, my initial feeling to try and grand stand and then trip someone up. If that's wrong, I'm sorry, but it's what stood out within your response to me as no one on GAF anyway, or James, is going around pretending their love of something somehow means their opinion is more valid, or someones lesser. He posted a video on his channel, HIS channel, where he posts all his other opinions. Not as if he railed into someone else's space and said "excuse me, I know better". The guy calmly stated his opinion, and that was it. He wasn't trying to tell other people what to do with their opinion.

If anything, Occam's razor, when someone loves something they're more likely to talk about it/sequels/anything in it's universe. Think about that.

 

[jstripes]

I feel like he felt forced to make the video this week by his fans constantly pestering him "hey can we expect a shit storm when you go watch the new one?" and it just pushed him over the edge. He's disappointed after so long that this is the way the franchise is coming back - a film where he's not the target audience. Given his internet reach and popularity overall , going out of his way to pick on and single out this one remake after ignoring the last 15 years of recycled cinema feels like throwing rocks at a corpse. He blends into a crowd and makes it seem okay to be a hater.

That right there is the single biggest issue behind the ongoing geek culture wars: Waking up and finding your traditional band of nerds is no longer the sole target audience of something.

But the fucking stupid thing about it is that Ghostbusters, and Star Wars for that matter, were never aimed at geeks to begin with. They were huge mainstream blockbusters. Geeks just organically took ownership of them over the years.

Heck, go back 50 years and Star Trek was a prime time network drama for a mainstream audience in the midst of the "space age".

Here's thing everyone - the new ghostbusters may well be a bad movie , it could also be a good movie - but the annoying thing is that it's being propped up as something WAY bigger than it actually is and the part that I dislike is that people like me - fans of the original ghostbusters who are also white males in their early 30's - are starting to look bad by association even if we've said something positive. I'm already seeing backlash forming on twitter that the original wasn't that great , how much longer until it becomes seen as a regressive terrible movie because the man children can't grow up just once ?

The movie's getting an average level of promotion for your typical summer blockbuster. The swirling storm of outrage is what's making the movie bigger than it actually is.

BvS, through marketing, was made to be a way bigger deal than this movie.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

1. He doesn't need to justify his opinion to you or anyone else.
2. Complaining about grandstanding by grandstanding is weird, dude.
3. You may have explained your reasons, but it doesn't make them sacrosanct.

I never said they need to be regarded as sacrosanct. Just that it'd be nice if they were read, not just quoted in full without any real attempt to make sense of them. At which point you're free to disagree, of course, but a lot of these attempts to oh-so-tricksily turn my super-smart talk back around on me and bring me down a peg are really clumsy because in the rush to "ah-haaa!" me nobody's getting a solid grip on what I'm actually fuckin' saying.

Yunno?

His opinion is already justified. I think that justification is also largely horseshit. People like you don't like that. Which is perfectly fine! Your protestations are noted and also being compared to the blithe dismissal frequently put on display whenever the disproportionate response to this film's shitty marketing campaign is investigated.

That comparison isn't super comfy to wear, I'm guessing. When you're insecure about things like "appearing sexist" and "liking childhood shit too much" things like that can feel awkward. Like a too-tight wool sweater. All itchy and uncomfortable.

But the fact remains there's a small subsect of people who have not much problem with people wilding out on any/everyone who has anything to do with that remake for whatever reasons, while simultaneously taking serious offense to a fraction of that same two-years-worth of anger and belligerence being aimed at The Angry Video Game Nerd.

That juxtaposition is kinda funny.

 

[coleco]

Why did Ghostbusters resonate so much with the nerd community to where the movie became this holy grail of geek entertainment? Did it appeal to the mainstream?

As someone who saw the original when it was released in cinema I'd say the movie was huge at the time. It was a great cinema movie for everyone, like the goonies, et, indiana jones and similar movies were in the 80s. Don't know where this connection with the nerd community comes from, back then it was as mainstream as it could be, with full families going to the cinema to watch.

 

[Adam_Vania]

crowdsurfing joke is some d-tier 90s Pauly Shore comedy schtick

 

[Bobby Roberts]

crowdsurfing joke is some d-tier 90s Pauly Shore comedy schtick

I seriously can't believe they spent all that money to set dress the place, hire all the extras, get the cranes in there, light the thing, and nobody at any point was like "Seriously though, all this for a fucking crowdsurfing joke, Paul? Fucking crowdsurfing?

The selfie-stick gag actually kinda works (because, surprise, Leslie Jones is underplaying the gag!) but it's going to be dated as shit by November.

 

[Nekofrog]

The weirdest thing I've seen in this thread isn't the misogyny (or the attempted hand waving explanations of "i know good cinema therefor i am not a misogynist when i say this movie and these ladies are horrible"), it's the fundamental misunderstanding of what the original Ghostbusters movie was.

1. Ghostbusters was NOT your childhood. Was it a movie you loved as a child? Great.
2. Ghostbusters was NOT aimed at you as a child. You (like me) just so happened to be EXPOSED to it during your childhood.
3. Ghostbusters was, for its time and PG rating, a pretty raunchy film. Ghost BJs, "this man has no D", naked woman final boss only covered up in bubbles, plot line ENTIRELY REVOLVING AROUND 2 PEOPLE BONING TO SPUR THE END OF THE WORLD. I could go on here.
4. Ghostbusters was a special effects tentpole movie. Literally no doubt. Critics raved about the special effects that were at the forefront of the movie at the time.

Now, the thing that REALLY irritates me in this thread from people hating on the movie is that they pretty much use each of those lines AGAINST the new one. "It's gross female humor (every crevice)", "it looks like they just pumped the budget into the special effects", "the original was never this raunchy", "muh childhood".

Let's not forget that Sony's marketing teams (or whoever they outsource them to) are notoriously HORRIBLE at promoting their films. There is historical evidence of good to great films looking horrendous just by trailers alone. To judge an entire movie based off of jokes that may not even be in the final cut of the movie (let's not pretend that studios don't film trailer only scenes now, because they do) is ridiculous.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

The selfie stick bit was great. It's why I've got hope this movie could deliver.

 

[jstripes]

As someone who saw the original when it was released in cinema I'd say the movie was huge at the time. It was a great cinema movie for everyone, like the goonies, et, indiana jones and similar movies were in the 80s. Don't know where this connection with the nerd community comes from, back then it was as mainstream as it could be, with full families going to the cinema to watch.

That's the point I was trying to make.

Geek culture has gotten to the point where any classic IP with a specific set of qualities is unilaterally declared sacred geek property.

The selfie stick bit was great. It's why I've got hope this movie could deliver.

I liked the "DO NOT. MAKE. THE GHOST. ANGRY." bit.

 

[Audioboxer]

I never said they need to be regarded as sacrosanct. Just that it'd be nice if they were read, not just quoted in full without any real attempt to make sense of them. At which point you're free to disagree, of course, but a lot of these attempts to oh-so-tricksily turn my super-smart talk back around on me and bring me down a peg are really clumsy because in the rush to "ah-haaa!" me nobody's getting a solid grip on what I'm actually fuckin' saying.

Yunno?

His opinion is already justified. I think that justification is also largely horseshit. People like you don't like that. Which is perfectly fine! Your protestations are noted and also being compared to the blithe dismissal frequently put on display whenever the disproportionate response to this film's shitty marketing campaign is investigated.

That comparison isn't super comfy to wear, I'm guessing. When you're insecure about things like "appearing sexist" and "liking childhood shit too much" things like that can feel awkward. Like a too-tight wool sweater. All itchy and uncomfortable.

But the fact remains there's a small subsect of people who have not much problem with people wilding out on any/everyone who has anything to do with that remake for whatever reasons, while simultaneously taking serious offense to a fraction of that same two-years-worth of anger and belligerence being aimed at The Angry Video Game Nerd.

That juxtaposition is kinda funny.

I can assure you I do not give a shit about people criticising him, so the "insecurity" tagline you end your posts with and the "serious offence" towards James do nothing for me.

I do however find it incredibly distasteful when he gets this

I don’t think “Angry Video Game Nerd” knows that he’s having a sexist reaction to Ghostbusters. I think a lot of guys online DO know that (or that they don’t believe sexism exists, which is even worse), but I don’t think “Angry Video Game Nerd” is sitting around stewing over women in Ghostbusters.

And that’s why his attitude is maybe the most dangerous. It speaks to the way sexism (and racism and plenty of other isms) kind of lives quietly inside of us, and the way it can impact our beliefs and actions without us even once considering it.

Dangerous? Really? ....

but I’m willing to bet these guys would be waaaay less angry if the cast included Seth Rogen and his gang. At the very least there wouldn’t be the vocal boycott brigade

Ironically his second video bashes Seth for a "pot filled Ghostbusters" which he doesn't want.

And he doesn’t realize that the root of all this, the root of feeling like someone betrayed his Ghostbusters, comes down to the fact that these Ghostbusters don’t look like him.

Put the sexism in his mouth, it's about it being females and he is male... right?

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/05/18/the-soft-sexism-of-hating-on-the-new-ghostbusters

That's not just saying his childhood bias is "largely horseshit" as you put it, but trying to set the guy up for a sexist firing line to take him down. So I hope that clears up I don't care if you bash his opinion and/or reasoning, but I do find it highly offensive when he's painted as guilty, when the evidence of his character does nothing legitimate enough to brand him as such.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

The weirdest thing I've seen in this thread isn't the misogyny (or the attempted hand waving explanations of "i know good cinema therefor i am not a misogynist when i say this movie and these ladies are horrible"), it's the fundamental misunderstanding of what the original Ghostbusters movie was.

1. Ghostbusters was NOT your childhood. Was it a movie you loved as a child? Great.
2. Ghostbusters was NOT aimed at you as a child. You (like me) just so happened to be EXPOSED to it during your childhood.
3. Ghostbusters was, for its time and PG rating, a pretty raunchy film. Ghost BJs, "this man has no D", naked woman final boss only covered up in bubbles, plot line ENTIRELY REVOLVING AROUND 2 PEOPLE BONING TO SPUR THE END OF THE WORLD. I could go on here.
4. Ghostbusters was a special effects tentpole movie. Literally no doubt. Critics raved about the special effects that were at the forefront of the movie at the time.

Now, the thing that REALLY irritates me in this thread from people hating on the movie is that they pretty much use each of those lines AGAINST the new one. "It's gross female humor (every crevice)", "it looks like they just pumped the budget into the special effects", "the original was never this raunchy", "muh childhood".

Let's not forget that Sony's marketing teams (or whoever they outsource them to) are notoriously HORRIBLE at promoting their films. There is historical evidence of good to great films looking horrendous just by trailers alone. To judge an entire movie based off of jokes that may not even be in the final cut of the movie (let's not pretend that studios don't film trailer only scenes now, because they do) is ridiculous.

This is good stuff.

People should read it.

I can assure you I do not give a shit about people criticising him

Of course you do. You couldn't take the position your'e taking if you didn't. The rest of your post is delineating exactly why you give a shit about people's criticisms of him.

but trying to set the guy up for a sexist firing line to take him down.

This is the part I'm referring to when I talk about insecurity being a motherfucker, as highlighted very specifically in a previously quoted post:

We're seeing a lot of people trying to wrestle these narratives into place:

*I'm the victim because someone might think I'm sexist
*I'm the victim because my childhood memories are being manhandled
*I'm the victim because I can't just dislike something without being judged for it
*I'm the victim because Hollywood won't serve my thirst for original filmmaking.

There are a lot of angry insecure boys trying to ensure you understand how unfairly they think they're being treated simply because they're Ghostbusters fans

 

[stufte]

I think that justification is also largely horseshit.

In your opinion. Also, what if he just tweeted that he wasn't going to review the movie and gave no justification, do you think that would have been better? Do you think he'd have gotten the same amount of shit for it?

That comparison isn't super comfy to wear, I'm guessing. When you're insecure about things like "appearing sexist" and "liking childhood shit too much" things like that can feel awkward. Like a too-tight wool sweater. All itchy and uncomfortable.

Not wanting to be called a sexist for doing non-sexist things isn't insecurity. It's common sense. Just like no one wants to be called a racist. Or be misgendered. Or 100 other things that aren't ok to do to someone.

You calling it insecurity is apparently your way of being condescending and treating people who you think are "wrong" as inferior to you.

You incessantly telling people to "read" as if they haven't and just don't agree with you is also condescending.

But the fact remains there's a small subsect of people who have not much problem with people wilding out on any/everyone who has anything to do with that remake for whatever reasons, while simultaneously taking serious offense to a fraction of that same two-years-worth of anger and belligerence being aimed at The Angry Video Game Nerd.

There is a OCEAN WIDE EXPANSE of a difference between people disliking a piece of entertainment and the belligerence aimed at an individual such as James. It's not at all the same.

I think it's bizzare that you and others are so worked up over him,honestly. He didn't say anything controversial, beyond saying he won't see a movie and why. But I guess Ghostbusters is the new battleground of progressive ideals and anyone who doesn't fawn over it is the enemy.

 

[jstripes]

The weirdest thing I've seen in this thread isn't the misogyny (or the attempted hand waving explanations of "i know good cinema therefor i am not a misogynist when i say this movie and these ladies are horrible"), it's the fundamental misunderstanding of what the original Ghostbusters movie was.

1. Ghostbusters was NOT your childhood. Was it a movie you loved as a child? Great.
2. Ghostbusters was NOT aimed at you as a child. You (like me) just so happened to be EXPOSED to it during your childhood.
3. Ghostbusters was, for its time and PG rating, a pretty raunchy film. Ghost BJs, "this man has no D", naked woman final boss only covered up in bubbles, plot line ENTIRELY REVOLVING AROUND 2 PEOPLE BONING TO SPUR THE END OF THE WORLD. I could go on here.
4. Ghostbusters was a special effects tentpole movie. Literally no doubt. Critics raved about the special effects that were at the forefront of the movie at the time.

Now, the thing that REALLY irritates me in this thread from people hating on the movie is that they pretty much use each of those lines AGAINST the new one. "It's gross female humor (every crevice)", "it looks like they just pumped the budget into the special effects", "the original was never this raunchy", "muh childhood".

Let's not forget that Sony's marketing teams (or whoever they outsource them to) are notoriously HORRIBLE at promoting their films. There is historical evidence of good to great films looking horrendous just by trailers alone. To judge an entire movie based off of jokes that may not even be in the final cut of the movie (let's not pretend that studios don't film trailer only scenes now, because they do) is ridiculous.

Thank you.

 

[Nekofrog]

This is good stuff.

People should read it.

I wanted to go on and add more about the marketing, reception, and audience type build of the first movie too but I feel like other posters have handled it better. Ghostbusters was a general audience movie. There simply were not enough nerds in 1984 to make a movie one of the highest grossing movies of the year. Baffles my mind that "nerd culture" has stamped their seal of "ITSALLOURS" on it.

 

[Merriweather]

It could be entertaining, but it mostly seems like they just ramped up the "outrageousness" to modern comedy levels.

 

[Audioboxer]

This is good stuff.

People should read it.



Of course you do. You couldn't take the position your'e taking if you didn't. The rest of your post is delineating exactly why you give a shit about people's criticisms of him.

I can assure you I can happily defend someone from being criminalized as a sexist even if I totally disagreed with their opinions. So yeah I can take this position. Heck if you read my posts I've even defended your right to mock the shit out of his opinion, even when I disagree with things you're saying. Mocking him is not the same as labelling him as a vile human being, or in that articles case, dangerous. I like to think most of us are above labelling someone as such without genuine evidence, because you know, none of us would like to be branded something we are not.

This is the part I'm referring to when I talk about insecurity being a motherfucker, as highlighted very specifically in a previously quoted post:

Bobby, I quoted the article written about him, so no, I'm not pulling things out of thin air as I'm insecure. You can keep posting that piece of yours all you like.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

In your opinion.

No shit

I can assure you I can happily defend someone from being criminalized as a sexist .

Good lord.

 

[jstripes]

I wanted to go on and add more about the marketing, reception, and audience type build of the first movie too but I feel like other posters have handled it better. Ghostbusters was a general audience movie. There simply were not enough nerds in 1984 to make a movie one of the highest grossing movies of the year. Baffles my mind that "nerd culture" has stamped their seal of "ITSALLOURS" on it.

Funny enough, in 1984...

 

[Audioboxer]

No shit



Good lord.

Sexism like bigotry and discrimination (racial abuse) can be a legal matter. You can be punished by law if proven guilty. All I'm doing is illustrating why to brand someone as such can be genuinely serious, besides being hurtful.

 

[plasmawave]

I never said they need to be regarded as sacrosanct. Just that it'd be nice if they were read, not just quoted in full without any real attempt to make sense of them. At which point you're free to disagree, of course, but a lot of these attempts to oh-so-tricksily turn my super-smart talk back around on me and bring me down a peg are really clumsy because in the rush to "ah-haaa!" me nobody's getting a solid grip on what I'm actually fuckin' saying.

Yunno?

His opinion is already justified. I think that justification is also largely horseshit. People like you don't like that. Which is perfectly fine! Your protestations are noted and also being compared to the blithe dismissal frequently put on display whenever the disproportionate response to this film's shitty marketing campaign is investigated.

That comparison isn't super comfy to wear, I'm guessing. When you're insecure about things like "appearing sexist" and "liking childhood shit too much" things like that can feel awkward. Like a too-tight wool sweater. All itchy and uncomfortable.

But the fact remains there's a small subsect of people who have not much problem with people wilding out on any/everyone who has anything to do with that remake for whatever reasons, while simultaneously taking serious offense to a fraction of that same two-years-worth of anger and belligerence being aimed at The Angry Video Game Nerd.

That juxtaposition is kinda funny.

Do you feel like a victim?

 

[blankempathy]

When you've baked as much fucking cake as I have in this thread and so many people are just strolling by the beautiful towering bastards without even so much as running a finger along the frosting fuck yes I'm going to serve myself a slice with a smile and have fun with the inherent ridiculousness in a minority of posters here suddenly finding their long lost ability to clutch at pearls and catch the vapors after two-years worth of non-stop hostility and acrimony the second it's aimed at a guy who likes Ghostbusters a lot.

Guess what: I also like Ghostbusters a lot. I might even argue I like it more than most of you here in this thread.

Not that it actually matters how much I like it. Because it doesn't. It really doesn't factor in at all. Nor should it with Rolfe. His liking Ghostbusters a lot isn't really a great justification for his grandstanding bullshit, for reasons I've explained, very thoroughly, prior to this. It's not great justification for much of anything.

People being mean to him on twitter, going after his wife and kids, that's just as out of bounds as people being mean to Feig, McCarthy, Jones on twitter. People going out of their way to mean-spiritedly bring up his personal life or his appearance are just as shitty as people going out of their way to cack on McCarthy or Jones' size.

What's notable to me is that it's been two years worth of people very painstakingly going out of their way to make sure everyone looking understands that sexism is just a ghost (hah!) people are jumping at so as to make excuses for why people don't like the shitty marketing on display. They have had little-to-no problem with the sustained levels of nastiness, and have had even less problem minimizing it, and have seemed to thoroughly enjoy pretending they're being somehow persecuted for daring to be lone voices of reason demonized for nothing more than daring to be a guy who has a keen eye for cinematic quality.

And a small number of these same men are now (gasp! shock!) freaked out and utterly dismayed at the "sheer vitriol" being expended towards The Angry Video Game Nerd for his God-Given right to express his opinion honestly and even-handedly.

So again: What we seem to be dealing with here are a group of men who are very insecure about both their opinions, their regard for their childhood, and also (maybe primarily) the possibility they might be labeled as a sexist on the internet, and have decided the best way to counter that insecurity is to attempt to minimize (if not flat-out erase) the possiblity that sexism has anything to do with anything.

This is the double-decker cake that keeps getting wheeled in the way of fairly basic conversation about this film's marketing campaign

Which is, by the way, not great, could possibly point towards Paul Feig fucking the dog on this film, and wasting the talents of his cast and crew in a misguided attempt at modernizing both the tone and humor of Ghostbusters.

Note that I can say that confidently, without ever once having to suggest or even nod to the idea someone might think I'm sexist for saying that. I can dislike the marketing without prefacing that with any sort of worry about how people I don't know may percieve me on the internet, because I'm not at all insecure about my ability to explain my opinions, my standpoints, and am confident my reasoning will hold up when asked for it.

Insecurity is a motherfucker.

I never said they need to be regarded as sacrosanct. Just that it'd be nice if they were read, not just quoted in full without any real attempt to make sense of them. At which point you're free to disagree, of course, but a lot of these attempts to oh-so-tricksily turn my super-smart talk back around on me and bring me down a peg are really clumsy because in the rush to "ah-haaa!" me nobody's getting a solid grip on what I'm actually fuckin' saying.

Yunno?

His opinion is already justified. I think that justification is also largely horseshit. People like you don't like that. Which is perfectly fine! Your protestations are noted and also being compared to the blithe dismissal frequently put on display whenever the disproportionate response to this film's shitty marketing campaign is investigated.

That comparison isn't super comfy to wear, I'm guessing. When you're insecure about things like "appearing sexist" and "liking childhood shit too much" things like that can feel awkward. Like a too-tight wool sweater. All itchy and uncomfortable.

But the fact remains there's a small subsect of people who have not much problem with people wilding out on any/everyone who has anything to do with that remake for whatever reasons, while simultaneously taking serious offense to a fraction of that same two-years-worth of anger and belligerence being aimed at The Angry Video Game Nerd.

That juxtaposition is kinda funny.

Oh I'm sorry. I guess people have to openly state that they're against any type of harassment aimed at anyone because if they don't then they're obviously okay with the harassment towards the cast/crew or anyone involved in this movie. I forgot to wear my "All forms of hatred and harrasment are bad" hat today. Its funny because you'd think that that wouldn't have to be said. Like it should just be an unspoken rule.

 

[brandonh83]

I wanted to go on and add more about the marketing, reception, and audience type build of the first movie too but I feel like other posters have handled it better. Ghostbusters was a general audience movie. There simply were not enough nerds in 1984 to make a movie one of the highest grossing movies of the year. Baffles my mind that "nerd culture" has stamped their seal of "ITSALLOURS" on it.

They feel entitlement. It should be this, it should be that, if it's not what's in my head, it's wrong. People can tell me that not everyone feels this way, and that's absolutely correct, but it does apply to some. The reason why people are frowning upon James' decision to not watch the movie (he's watching the movie btw) is because his reasoning boils down to it not being what he wanted.

And that's not even really... sinful, but it absolutely is him putting a stamp on it and saying it's all wrong to the point where he refuses to watch it in the first place (he'll watch it btw). Nobody's saying everyone should be obligated to go watch a movie, but James being a notorious Ghostbusters fan with a sizable internet following, well, you'd think that he'd at least be more open to seeing it and then proceeding to tear it to shreds, if need be.

I don't understand what the difference is between this and the new Ninja Turtles. The trailers were bad, everyone thought Michael Bay was directing it, there were cries of it ruining everyone's childhoods, the turtle designs were garbage, Megan Fox as April is garbage, Shredder looks like a Decepticon, etc. It also had a huge amount of vitriol, but James still saw it-- and didn't even hate it, despite the odds stacked against it. He didn't love it; what I got out of his thoughts was that he just found it like, passable, not childhood-destructive.

So if seeing that is okay, spending a decade beating shitty videogames to bash them online, gaining a following exactly because of this kind of stuff, I'm not sure why he's defensively opposed to seeing the new Ghostbusters. Again, worst case scenario is that he sees a movie he doesn't like. What's his shtick been for the past decade, again?

He'll watch it, by the way.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Do you feel like a victim?

This is why I keep telling you to read, man. Because I end up having already answered your questions before you amble along and try to toss 'em back into my lap.

For ease-of-use, here's the direct passage in which someone also asked the question you're asking:

My complaining isn't coming from a stance wherein I feel personally afffronted/offended/aggrieved, so no.

I understood Kinyou's post to be a response to my previous post, which followed a line of posts that made very clear what kind of complaining was being talked about, the stance from which that complaining was issued, and the reasoning behind that stance.

It's pretty easy to understand in the context of the ongoing conversations.

If I was, at any point, making an argument sourced from a position of feeling somehow maligned by outside forces in the course of this brouhaha, then yeah, your question about my victimhood might actually apply to me.

But it didn't, and it doesn't.

Insecurity is a motherfucker.

Moving on!

Oh I'm sorry. I guess people have to openly state that they're against any type of harassment aimed at anyone

It's weird how not once at any point in my multiple criticisms of this shitty marketing campaign have I ever felt like I needed to worry that anyone is going to think my well-reasoned, thoroughly explained, easy-to-understand opinions would be confused as coming from a sexist place. Strange how confident I am in that regard. As if I'm fairly secure in being able to express myself, and in being able to explain my position.

Like I've done all thread long.

 

[Audioboxer]

They feel entitlement. It should be this, it should be that, if it's not what's in my head, it's wrong. People can tell me that not everyone feels this way, and that's absolutely correct, but it does apply to some. The reason why people are frowning upon James' decision to not watch the movie (he's watching the movie btw) is because his reasoning boils down to it not being what he wanted.

And that's not even really... sinful, but it absolutely is him putting a stamp on it and saying it's all wrong to the point where he refuses to watch it in the first place (he'll watch it btw). Nobody's saying everyone should be obligated to go watch a movie, but James being a notorious Ghostbusters fan with a sizable internet following, well, you'd think that he'd at least be more open to seeing it and then proceeding to tear it to shreds, if need be.

I don't understand what the difference is between this and the new Ninja Turtles. The trailers were bad, everyone thought Michael Bay was directing it, there were cries of it ruining everyone's childhoods, the turtle designs were garbage, Megan Fox as April is garbage, Shredder looks like a Decepticon, etc. It also had a huge amount of vitriol, but James still saw it-- and didn't even hate it, despite the odds stacked against it. He didn't love it; what I got out of his thoughts was that he just found it like, passable, not childhood-destructive.

So if seeing that is okay, spending a decade beating shitty videogames to bash them online, gaining a following exactly because of this kind of stuff, I'm not sure why he's defensively opposed to seeing the new Ghostbusters. Again, worst case scenario is that he sees a movie he doesn't like. What's his shtick been for the past decade, again?

He'll watch it, by the way.

In a way that is what we all do though... People are arguing the movie should be how it is now for reason x, y, z, and some on the other side are arguing it should be like the originals for reason x, y, z. Others don't give a shit and will watch because it's... a movie.

Bias is everywhere. It's normal. You can argue either camp is feeling entitled. The same entitlement that exists to tell James he is wrong, has some saying this new fresh reboot is what Ghostbusters should be in 2016. You can't escape a bias/entitlement, it's what forms the opinion you have in your head to why you like or dislike the direction something has gone in. Said feelings usually intensify if it's something you care about. Go check any game review thread. It happens all the time. People should be able to express bias and have that criticised, not their personal life, unduly.

What is fucking ludicrous though is either camp using insults and slander to say the other camp is wrong. That should be reserved for those blatantly posting discriminatory remarks on YT/Twitter/wherever. That crossover is what is toxic right now about the atmosphere surrounding this movie. People attacking Patton Oswalt's deceased wife, people calling James an out and out sexist and dangerous. It's a shitshow with the media and articles not entirely helping either.

 

[Deleted member 74300]

So if seeing that is okay, spending a decade beating shitty videogames to bash them online, gaining a following exactly because of this kind of stuff, I'm not sure why he's defensively opposed to seeing the new Ghostbusters. Again, worst case scenario is that he sees a movie he doesn't like. What's his shtick been for the past decade, again?

He'll watch it, by the way.

Because he is/was known as the ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD. Not the Angry Movie Critic. If you want someone to watch something so you don't have to that's the Nostalgia Critics job.

 

[The Silver]

I know everyone was waiting for it so here's MY opinion on Jonathan Wolf(t-shirt), Ghostbusters: Estrogen Reloaded, and everything else everyone is talking about.













and there it is, hope to hear your responses.

 

[brandonh83]

Because he is/was known as the ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD. Not the Angry Movie Critic. If you want someone to watch something so you don't have to that's the Nostalgia Critics job.

He does that too, though. James frequently makes video reviews; well, more like deconstructions. But he still sees movies that people are interested in his opinion from, and frequently watches shitty movies just as he does shitty games. He's reviewed plenty of shitty movies.

 

[Lothar]

They feel entitlement. It should be this, it should be that, if it's not what's in my head, it's wrong. People can tell me that not everyone feels this way, and that's absolutely correct, but it does apply to some. The reason why people are frowning upon James' decision to not watch the movie (he's watching the movie btw) is because his reasoning boils down to it not being what he wanted.

And that's not even really... sinful, but it absolutely is him putting a stamp on it and saying it's all wrong to the point where he refuses to watch it in the first place (he'll watch it btw). Nobody's saying everyone should be obligated to go watch a movie, but James being a notorious Ghostbusters fan with a sizable internet following, well, you'd think that he'd at least be more open to seeing it and then proceeding to tear it to shreds, if need be.

I don't understand what the difference is between this and the new Ninja Turtles. The trailers were bad, everyone thought Michael Bay was directing it, there were cries of it ruining everyone's childhoods, the turtle designs were garbage, Megan Fox as April is garbage, Shredder looks like a Decepticon, etc. It also had a huge amount of vitriol, but James still saw it-- and didn't even hate it, despite the odds stacked against it. He didn't love it; what I got out of his thoughts was that he just found it like, passable, not childhood-destructive.

So if seeing that is okay, spending a decade beating shitty videogames to bash them online, gaining a following exactly because of this kind of stuff, I'm not sure why he's defensively opposed to seeing the new Ghostbusters.

I'm guessing he feels the Ghostbusters trailer is worse than the TMNT trailer.

Clearly that is a cause for outrage.

 

[blankempathy]

They feel entitlement. It should be this, it should be that, if it's not what's in my head, it's wrong. People can tell me that not everyone feels this way, and that's absolutely correct, but it does apply to some. The reason why people are frowning upon James' decision to not watch the movie (he's watching the movie btw) is because his reasoning boils down to it not being what he wanted.

And that's not even really... sinful, but it absolutely is him putting a stamp on it and saying it's all wrong to the point where he refuses to watch it in the first place (he'll watch it btw). Nobody's saying everyone should be obligated to go watch a movie, but James being a notorious Ghostbusters fan with a sizable internet following, well, you'd think that he'd at least be more open to seeing it and then proceeding to tear it to shreds, if need be.

I don't understand what the difference is between this and the new Ninja Turtles. The trailers were bad, everyone thought Michael Bay was directing it, there were cries of it ruining everyone's childhoods, the turtle designs were garbage, Megan Fox as April is garbage, Shredder looks like a Decepticon, etc. It also had a huge amount of vitriol, but James still saw it-- and didn't even hate it, despite the odds stacked against it. He didn't love it; what I got out of his thoughts was that he just found it like, passable, not childhood-destructive.

So if seeing that is okay, spending a decade beating shitty videogames to bash them online, gaining a following exactly because of this kind of stuff, I'm not sure why he's defensively opposed to seeing the new Ghostbusters. Again, worst case scenario is that he sees a movie he doesn't like. What's his shtick been for the past decade, again?

He'll watch it, by the way.

However flawed people think his reasoning is ultimately he said he won't watch it because it encourages Hollywood to continue to make reboots that fans don't want. Do you not think this is a valid reason? Look at resident evil. Lots of people love the games up to a certain point which was before it became too action packed. Resident evil 6 was everything most resident evil fans didn't want and the sales showed this. Now they're talking about returning to the "horror" roots and have been remastering the old games. So clearly speaking with your wallet does work at times.

 

[jstripes]

Because he is/was known as the ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD. Not the Angry Movie Critic. If you want someone to watch something so you don't have to that's the Nostalgia Critics job.

His website is called Cinemassacre. He's been a huge movie nerd since he was a kid. He's been making "movies" for years.

AVGN was a project he did because he wanted to make videos based around this character, and it turned out huge.

 

[brandonh83]

What is fucking ludicrous though is either camp using insults and slander to say the other camp is wrong. That should be reserved for those blatantly posting discriminatory remarks on YT/Twitter/wherever. That crossover is what is toxic right now about the atmosphere surrounding this movie.

I may think some feel entitled. I hate throwing around labels, but the reaction to this from some is relatively damning. However, that isn't meant as an insult. I'm not insulting anyone for feeling entitled; just as you began your post with everyone feeling entitled. That's true, and that's his decision. I'm just not sure what it is about this Ghostbusters, per se, that has him outright refusing to watch it, if it's not a sense of heavy entitlement-- and being into film as much as he is, I know for a fact that he doesn't assume that bad trailers = bad movies. That happens all the time, and vice-versa, and I'm sure he knows that.

But I'm not flinging insults. I'm only saying that completely refusing to see a movie before there's even been any fuckin' reviews is kneejerkish at best, and as myself and others have pointed out already, what if it turns out good? What if a lot of people like it and it reviews well? Will he still refuse to see it? I highly doubt it, and that's the point I'm trying to make. We're all fickle and our minds change and develop as we gather more information. I've seen people say they're far more optimistic about the movie after the new trailer. What happened was that they gathered more information from it and saw things they actually liked more. It's a perfectly normal human response.

That's why myself and others are saying that he's being a little closed-minded and entitled, because he's essentially sealing the envelope over something that he, quite frankly, has no idea how it'll turn out.

However flawed people think his reasoning is ultimately he said he won't watch it because it encourages Hollywood to continue to make reboots that fans don't want. Do you not think this is a valid reason? Look at resident evil.

Except, ya know, for the fact that this is bullshit. I'll look at Resident Evil-- wait, you mean that one franchise that is about to have a SIXTH INSTALLMENT because of how popular and financially successful they've been?

People say this shit all the time-- we don't want remakes, reboots, sequels, yadda yadda-- yet the turnouts they actually receive don't all the time reflect this.

 

[blankempathy]

This is why I keep telling you to read, man. Because I end up having already answered your questions before you amble along and try to toss 'em back into my lap.

For ease-of-use, here's the direct passage in which someone also asked the question you're asking:



Moving on!



It's weird how not once at any point in my multiple criticisms of this shitty marketing campaign have I ever felt like I needed to worry that anyone is going to think my well-reasoned, thoroughly explained, easy-to-understand opinions would be confused as coming from a sexist place. Strange how confident I am in that regard. As if I'm fairly secure in being able to express myself, and in being able to explain my position.

Like I've done all thread long.

So we're just going to pretend he didn't get harassed online or really anyone who speaks out against something controversial? Nothing he said was remotely controversial. Yet again i've seen multiple articles written negatively about him. Maybe you don't need to worry because what you say won't make any waves. Lets not pretend that applies to everyone. Some people don't want to deal with it. I can't blame them.

 

[stufte]

No shit

I take the time to respond to you line by line and that's all you've got for me? Okie Dokie.

 

[plasmawave]

I may think some feel entitled. I hate throwing around labels, but the reaction to this from some is relatively damning. However, that isn't meant as an insult. I'm not insulting anyone for feeling entitled; just as you began your post with everyone feeling entitled. That's true, and that's his decision. I'm just not sure what it is about this Ghostbusters, per se, that has him outright refusing to watch it, if it's not a sense of heavy entitlement-- and being into film as much as he is, I know for a fact that he doesn't assume that bad trailers = bad movies. That happens all the time, and vice-versa, and I'm sure he knows that.

But I'm not flinging insults. I'm only saying that completely refusing to see a movie before there's even been any fuckin' reviews is kneejerkish at best, and as myself and others have pointed out already, what if it turns out good? What if a lot of people like it and it reviews well? Will he still refuse to see it? I highly doubt it, and that's the point I'm trying to make. We're all fickle and our minds change and develop as we gather more information. I've seen people say they're far more optimistic about the movie after the new trailer. What happened was that they gathered more information from it and saw things they actually liked more. It's a perfectly normal human response.

That's why myself and others are saying that he's being a little closed-minded and entitled, because he's essentially sealing the envelope over something that he, quite frankly, has no idea how it'll turn out.

How many people here have completely dismissed Adam Sandler or Seth McFarlane's movies based on trailers? But this is a problem now because why?

 

[Salty Rice]

I think i know now why so many people hate James Rolfe for his honest and good decisions.

Its like they are twins. Its like poetry.

 

[Camjo-Z]

I don't understand what the difference is between this and the new Ninja Turtles. The trailers were bad, everyone thought Michael Bay was directing it, there were cries of it ruining everyone's childhoods, the turtle designs were garbage, Megan Fox as April is garbage, Shredder looks like a Decepticon, etc. It also had a huge amount of vitriol, but James still saw it-- and didn't even hate it, despite the odds stacked against it. He didn't love it; what I got out of his thoughts was that he just found it like, passable, not childhood-destructive.

He did a review of the movie with the Nostalgia Critic, and the difference he found there was that TMNT has had a million different incarnations since its inception, whereas Ghostbusters has been pretty consistent with 2 films, a followup video game that's basically GB3, and two spin-off cartoons (one of which was quite short-lived). So where there's always going to be a new version of the TMNT even if you don't like the current one, if you don't like the direction they're taking with the new Ghostbusters there might not be another type of GB to look forward to for quite some time.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

So we're just going to pretend he didn't get harassed online

No, we're not going to do that. From the post you quoted (both of 'em!) at the very top of this page:

People being mean to him on twitter, going after his wife and kids, that's just as out of bounds as people being mean to Feig, McCarthy, Jones on twitter. People going out of their way to mean-spiritedly bring up his personal life or his appearance are just as shitty as people going out of their way to cack on McCarthy or Jones' size.

That's me, saying all of those things are shitty and out-of-bounds.

Like, seriously - if you (or anyone) is going to quote what I said back at me please at least do me the favor of having demonstrated that you read some of it. Don't just quote it all in one big block if I have to just refer you back to the parts that directly address the single aspect of the thousands of words (of mine) you're trying to hit me with.

I take the time to respond to you line by line and that's all you've got for me? .

I've given so freely, though. So tirelessly!

Quote lovingly from my works and be blessed!

 

[Audioboxer]

I may think some feel entitled. I hate throwing around labels, but the reaction to this from some is relatively damning. However, that isn't meant as an insult. I'm not insulting anyone for feeling entitled; just as you began your post with everyone feeling entitled. That's true, and that's his decision. I'm just not sure what it is about this Ghostbusters, per se, that has him outright refusing to watch it, if it's not a sense of heavy entitlement-- and being into film as much as he is, I know for a fact that he doesn't assume that bad trailers = bad movies. That happens all the time, and vice-versa, and I'm sure he knows that.

But I'm not flinging insults. I'm only saying that completely refusing to see a movie before there's even been any fuckin' reviews is kneejerkish at best, and as myself and others have pointed out already, what if it turns out good? What if a lot of people like it and it reviews well? Will he still refuse to see it? I highly doubt it, and that's the point I'm trying to make. We're all fickle and our minds change and develop as we gather more information. I've seen people say they're far more optimistic about the movie after the new trailer. What happened was that they gathered more information from it and saw things they actually liked more. It's a perfectly normal human response.

That's why myself and others are saying that he's being a little closed-minded and entitled, because he's essentially sealing the envelope over something that he, quite frankly, has no idea how it'll turn out.

You know he'll probably end up watching it. The shit that's kicked off would drive anyone to. He's been quiet on Twitter since but I don't doubt he'll just want to say "I'll watch it!" to put some fires out.

Even if he doesn't, the point is you can't force someone with an entitled opinion to do so just for your own pleasure/self-satisfaction. It's entirely possible to say something looks shit, I'm not watching it, earplugs on when people say that's not fair you need to judge it properly by viewing it... and so forth. That's just life. You see that kind of attitude everywhere. People refusing to play games they say are shit, people refusing to debate politics properly and ignoring criticisms of their parties policies. I'm sure now that GT Sport is coming this year we'll have plenty of the Forza is shit/GT is shit posts that come from people most certainly not having actually played both games.

All that matters is they get known for being hypocritical not to judge a final product in full, not labelled as something they are not because their opinion or stance put you in a huff and you're not happy they won't give something a chance you're optimistic about. That's really a darker sense of entitlement, instead of just saying your loss then, and moving on.

 

[brandonh83]

How many people here have completely dismissed Adam Sandler or Seth McFarlane's movies based on trailers? But this is a problem now because why?

Must I? Alright.

How many recent Adam Sandler/McFarlane films been good? Critically well-received?

Now, compare that to Paul Feig's recent output. Bridesmaids. Spy. The former has a 90% RT, the latter, a 94%. Can you pinpoint me to any Sandler/McFarlane material that has seen that acclaim or box-office success?

No, because their shit is historically bad, whereas Paul Feig's stuff has been doing rather well. As has been pointed out, Spy and Bridesmaids also had pretty terrible trailers, but they were mostly well-received and had great reviews.

 

[blankempathy]

IExcept, ya know, for the fact that this is bullshit. I'll look at Resident Evil-- wait, you mean that one franchise that is about to have a SIXTH INSTALLMENT because of how popular and financially successful they've been?

Look how badly pretty much every spinoff game has done aside from revelations. While 4 may have been more action oriented it only took 2 games after that before Capcom apparently backed down from the direction they were taking the series. Since then we've had revelations and remake 1 and 0 remastered and apparently statements of how 7 will return to its horror roots. Clearly money talks.

 

[wetwired]

Must I? Alright.

How many recent Adam Sandler/McFarlane films been good? Critically well-received?

Now, compare that to Paul Feig's recent output. Bridesmaids. Spy. The former has a 90% RT, the latter, a 94%. Can you pinpoint me to any Sandler/McFarlane material that has seen that acclaim or box-office success?

No, because their shit is historically bad, whereas Paul Feig's stuff has been doing rather well. As has been pointed out, Spy and Bridesmaids also had pretty terrible trailers, but they were mostly well-received and had great reviews.

So you've seen the new Ghostbusters have you?

 

[alfredofroylan]

Because he is/was known as the ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD. Not the Angry Movie Critic. If you want someone to watch something so you don't have to that's the Nostalgia Critics job.

That's one of the worst arguments I've seen in the discussion. The AVGN is just a character, he can do reviews of whatever he wants.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

So you've seen the new Ghostbusters have you?

edit: retracted due to acknowledged misunderstanding

 

[brandonh83]

Look how badly pretty much every spinoff game has done aside from revelations. While 4 may have been more action oriented it only took 2 games after that before Capcom apparently backed down from the direction they were taking the series.

Right. All I was responding to is this notion that "fans don't want x." They do. If they didn't, they wouldn't bother. People say they're over Transformers, they don't want any more Michael Bay Transformers movies, and that nobody wants any more. Yet, they continue to make shitloads of money, and the next one will too.

If people legitimately did not want any of this stuff, they wouldn't be remotely successful. There's a lot of people, fans of things-- while I think the Transformers movies have been pretty awful, I don't give a shit if they make 39 more of them. They're movies. They'll come out, exist, some may find enjoyment in them. If so, cool. That's like, the whole fuckin point of movies.

It confuses the absolute hell out of me that some people literally seem to be offended or bothered by the mere existence of a movie. If you don't want reboots or remakes, alright, but they'll keep coming. But they're just movies. There's nothing wrong with the existence of them, but you'd think it keeps some people up at night. Boycotting a movie like Ghostbusters is not going to prevent any kind of trend.

So you've seen the new Ghostbusters have you?

No. I'm doing this silly thing where I'm bringing up hard facts as to why there's a difference between Paul Feig and Adam Sandler.