Professor Beef
Banned
Rolfe's comment about Ramis was gross too. Just dumb shit all around.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Ghostbusters Trailer 2
- Thread starter xRaizen
- Start date
- Status
legendaryskitch
Member
While I agree with James Rolfe and I have no plans on seeing it, his comments and desire to make a 6 minute video about how it's shitting on the old ones is ridiculous and unnecessary. Patton's comments are valid. Fuck every single one of those people attacking him and bringing up his wife. That is just awful scum of the earth level stuff.
Corronchilejano
Member
What kind of asshole do you have to be to do something like that?
A quick correction on the article.
He literally never says that, at all, in the whole video.
Which one? The "joke" where he makes fun of how James breathes?
That does not justify the fuckery of messing with his deceased wife, of course.
Yeah, you should only makes videos on things you like and agree with.
legendaryskitch
Member
I meant the comments about seeing the movie first before shitting on it. Making videos about things that you don't like is fine if you've actually seen it....
BassForever
Member
This sounds even worse then the trailers
lazyproblems
Member
I did like it more than the first trailer, but I'm still not in love with what I'm seeing. Regardless, I still plan on seeing it.
James Rolfe announcing he's not going to review a reboot to a great film with a shitty sequel feels like attention-seeking and unnecessary. He's reviewed utter garbage like Batman v Superman and Terminator Genisys, so drawing the line here seems pointless.
Congratulations, dude, you aren't watching Ghostbusters. I love Jurassic Park and still saw Jurassic World despite not being impressed by its trailer. It turned out to be awful, but I watched the movie and based my opinion on the film itself.
Patton Oswalt is a comedian. He makes self-deprecating jokes about himself and nerd culture on a regular basis.
Congratulations, dude, you aren't watching Ghostbusters. I love Jurassic Park and still saw Jurassic World despite not being impressed by its trailer. It turned out to be awful, but I watched the movie and based my opinion on the film itself.
The one where Patton Oswalt critiques James Rolfe for railing against a movie he hasn't seen.
Patton Oswalt is a comedian. He makes self-deprecating jokes about himself and nerd culture on a regular basis.
excelsiorlef
Member
Toyfair confirmed that ages ago
Tevious
Member
Just watched the 2nd trailer, and.... still couldn't even crack a smile. This IS still supposed to be a COMEDY, right? I think this movie is just a victim of bad writing, and whoever wrote this crap is going to get off the hook because sexists! Unless I see review threads talking about how amazing the film actually is, I'm just going to ignore it from here on out because it just doesn't look at all interesting or funny.
BassForever
Member
I don't think you can compare since Ghostbusters is a comedy first and a lot of the utter garbage James has seen are meant to be action or horror films first. I think most people who like so bad its good movies would agree a bad action or horror film can be entertaining ironically, a bad comedy is usually just miserable see most of the parody movies made in the past decade. Also if the leaked reddit script is accurate which this trailer seems to indicate is true
the film seems to go out of its way to piss off fans of the original.
Corronchilejano
Member
Guess you can't share your own opinion on the internet anymore, people are too sensitive.
No really, they are. And some are motherfucking assholes.
Railing? He hasn't told anyone else not to go see it. He said "I won't see it for these reasons." People have asked him for a review, he doesn't want to do it, that's it.
I'll remember to forget personal attacks if the one making them is a comedian.
James Rolfe's 6:30 video is superficial and highly presumptive. "If you already know you're going to hate it, why give them your money?" Okay, James. Thanks for jumping to conclusions. That's bad form for a critic.
Ghostbusters 3 didn't happen because Murray didn't want to be involved with it after Ghostbusters 2 was shitty. They couldn't get the script in a place that made everyone happy and it didn't happen, and I think that's a good thing. Ghostbusters 3 would have been depressing.
I don't understand why people use the word "franchise." Ghostbusters is a great film, but it's not a great franchise. Practically everything that spun off from it was garbage. "It's one of the most celebrated franchises ever." It's one of the most celebrated films, but as a "franchise" it's bad.
His argument that a younger generation won't know about the original because both films share the same title is absurd. It's a remake. It's not erasing the original from existence. I think Jurassic World is awful, but the original will continue to exist. The Thing prequel is a bad movie, but it doesn't wipe the John Carpenter film out of existence (which is a remake).
You whine and call people assholes and "sensitive" for criticizing a critic, but then whine about a comedian making a joke about a critic that that falls along the same lines of jokes he's about himself on numerous occasions?
Okay, that makes sense.
I already watched the video. I get where he's coming from, but I don't agree with most of what he relates in the video. Nothing he says is revelatory. He wanted the studio to pander to fans and they chose to go in a different direction.
Well first I have not seen Fury Road so I can only comment on it in so many ways, but in general I typically don't go out of my way to bother with remakes or reboots, so its not like I'm singling out Ghostbusters in that aspect. I will say one of the immediate issues I have is the overuse of CGI vs the more Practical effects heavy original. The ghosts look like cartoons but this is an issues I have with current movies overall anyway.I have heard the practical effects in Fury Road where very good though so I have a lot of respect for that if its true (apparently not).These look far better in my opinion then anything shown in the reboot up to this point:
I don't like the replacement of roles with random other people because for me in the majority of those situations the person that I associate with those roles is the original actor or actress. It would be like Hollywood attempting to remake or reboot a Marx brothers film, there is no one who could replace them so why bother trying to? The three stooges had the same problem for me.
I'm also not a fan of some of the casting choices in general as I'm just not a fan of Melissa Mccarthy or Kristin Wigg. If this was not a reboot but a continuation and it was a situation where Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts took up command of the Ghostbusters due to something happening to the originals I would probably be more willing to spend money to see it but as it stands right now they have to show me why I should do that and they have not so far.
Corronchilejano
Member
He's not a critic. There's literally no way for him to be unbiased with this movie, and he made a 6:30 video about that fact, and somehow people in this very thread don't seem to get it.
You somehow took a phrase utterly out of context to fit your own narrative of him telling you not to see it. I guess when it's time to hate some stuff people stop understanding complete ideas and just start taking phrases at face value.
How old are you? Serious question. Because I already know of kids that don't know about the original Robocop.
I haven't called anyone an asshole other than the people that started bringing this mans deceased wife. I apologize if you thought I referred to anyone else.
Except the studio is pandering, there're a lot of scenes and characters in there from previous movies. In fact, we know that the previous leads are in the movie in different roles and haven't seen a single one yet.
Mr. Pointy
Member
The butthurt being generated by James' video is pretty fucking amazing.
People are fucking disgusting
Mad Max: Fury Road has a great deal of CGI in it. They composited multiple plates together for a great deal of the stunt work to get the final effect. The
storm sequence
Don't misunderstand me, Mad Max: Fury Road is a great movie. It's one of my favorite films of 2015, but the argument that CGI is inherently bad isn't sound. It's a tool. How you use it is what matters.
The original Ghostbusters has its share of effects that don't hold up as well today. I have a tendency to overlook its faults because I grew up with the film and enjoy it, but claiming its effects are perfect isn't fair.
TatteredHat
Member
Which is surprising, considering it's one of the tamest videos I've seen surrounding the movie.
Mr. Pointy
Member
Yeah. This is why I don't bother with Twitter.
Lapidus' Beard
Member
Well, it's a better trailer than the first one. But it's still not funny or interesting at all.
I'm sorry, but Rolfe announcing that he is not gonna review the film is not attention seeking. He is an avid Ghostbusters fan many thought that a review was expected from him. His video was pretty harmless answer to that expectation and I'm not sure why people gother mad at him for this. He rarely do review modern movies anyway.
James Duncan Rolfe's Wikipedia page says he's "an American actor, comedian, filmmaker, film and video game critic, and internet personality." He judges things and posts his evaluations which consist of criticisms, which makes him a critic.
It's okay to be biased. Reviews are subjective because an objective review would be tantamount to watching paint dry while a Coldplay album plays on a loop. If you're a critic, you need to understand your bias and at least give something a fair chance. If you choose to circumvent it altogether, so be it, but you lose credibility when you relegate something as trash before you watch it. Calling attention to it with a separate video seems unnecessary.
There are kids who don't know about Ghostbusters. They didn't know about the film before this remake, but the presence of this remake could actually draw more attention to the original, as Sony intends on releasing the original in theaters again in June of this year.
I misunderstood what you put in "spoiler" tags. My mistake.
James Rolfe's main beef seems to be that they rebooted the entire continuity, which Paul Feig explained was because he connected with the sense of "discovery" and "invention" of the original. Feig felt having these new leads follow the original characters would diminish their sense of "discovery" and didn't want to be tied to the original's continuity.
You could say the cameos in the present film are pandering, but the studio forcing the original cast to reprise their roles to "pass the torch" on to a new cast would have been worse.
Then why did he review Jurassic World, Terminator Genysis, and Batman v Superman?
BassForever
Member
I'm pretty sure James didn't write his own wikipedia entry. Also James isn't a paid film critic who's job is to watch every movie and review it objectively, he's an entertainer who happens to entertain via game and movie reviews. He could probably have made a lot more money by making an avgn ghostbusters 2016 movie review doing his usual shtick about how terrible the film is then what he did. If anything I can appreciate James somewhat acknowleding the fact he probably couldn't be 100% objective towards the new ghostbusters film since he is such a die hard fan that between the trailers, interviews, and leaked script he's just decided to be out.
And James saw Jurassic World and Terminator Gensys since he probably thought he would enjoy them based upon the trailers, the inverse of how he felt after seeing the new ghostbusters trailer which is why he isn't planning to see it. Heck the dude admitted it could end up being good but he's not paying to see it in theaters.
And James saw Jurassic World and Terminator Gensys since he probably thought he would enjoy them based upon the trailers, the inverse of how he felt after seeing the new ghostbusters trailer which is why he isn't planning to see it. Heck the dude admitted it could end up being good but he's not paying to see it in theaters.
SonicMegaDrive
Member
It's amazing how much toxic vitriolic garbage has been spewed over this film. And its from both sides, lets be clear about that.
Corronchilejano
Member
Have you seen his reviews? He likes B movies and bad movies too (hence, why he reviewed Batman & Robin.) He enjoys watching movies and videogames and just tearing them apart just for nostalgias sake. You can see he really enjoys stupid movies.
Why should he give anything a fair chance? He doesn't want to see the movie. He didn't say the movie is trash, that's something you're saying. What he did say is he wasn't going to watch it because he knows he's going to hate it. What's wrong with telling the audience asking you about what you think of an upcoming movie your opinion?
I didn't know about that.
Yes, and again, what is wrong in informing your subscribers about how you feel about it in such a specific manner? It's not like he started a campaign to tell people not to watch it.
Why the vitriol against the video? It's exactly like the thousands of people disliking the trailer. "He shouldn't even have done it! How dare he!"
... And Creed, Godzilla (2014), The Human Centipede, It Follows, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens...
I wouldn't call it "rarely" based on scrolling through his YouTube channel.
Saying he "rarely" reviews modern movies when he does review modern movies is inaccurate.
Professional film critics don't even do this but James is supposed to because of reasons.
TheLegendOfMart
Banned
Ghostbusters defined my childhood. I raced home from school to watch The Real Ghostbusters, I had the films on VHS, then DVD then Blu-ray multiple times and plan on getting 4K versions. I had the soundtracks on Vinyl and played them so much that they wore out. I had all the toys including proton packs, traps, ghost house, ecto 1(two of them) and 2, every figure and ghost.
I can't fucking wait to see this, it looks awesome. Not sure how the film is trying to piss fans of the originals off, they exist separate from each other. Ghostbusters is a product of its time that wouldn't work today. Theres a reason why Ghostbusters 3 never got off the ground and the only way this film was going to be greenlit was in this form.
plasmawave
Banned
This is what they do. Just make up shit to suit your narrative. It's pathetic.
And it's not just these blogs, even on neogaf you have people (you know who you are) straight up lying about what James says in the video.
I've seen several of his videos. He's still a critic by definition, even if his schtick is that he reviews older video games, films, etc.
Here are James Rolfe's quotes from the video:
"Judging from the trailers, it looks awful."
"Instead of doing what everyone else is going to do, go see it and complain how awful it is, I am going to do something different. Something unheard of. I'm not going to see it. Wow. What a novel concept, right? If you already know you're going to hate it, why give them your money?"
"Well, at least he [Harold Ramis] didn't live to see this shit."
Rolfe also states that the movie "looks bad" and "misguided."
I think it's important to note that I don't hate the video. I don't agree with most of what he relates in it despite understanding where he's coming form. I don't dislike James Rolfe as a person.
I think formally announcing you aren't going to watch a remake two months before it's released because you've already decided it's bad is unnecessary and bad form for a critic.
I don't care what he thinks, as I'm seeing the film and making up my own mind despite enjoying the original film, which is the rational thing to do.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
I know want this movie to do well to see the nerd rage
Indeed, if only they spent that much time on the script.
Did he feel the need to make a formal announcement about not reviewing the Total Recall and Robocop remakes two months before they were released because he had already decided they were bad?
Whether or not he reviews modern movies every week doesn't have an effect on my argument. He's still reviewed modern films despite his schtick and he's still a critic.
It's bad form to dismiss the quality of something before viewing it. This applies to any form of entertainment.
Corronchilejano
Member
After pixels, I thought any movie misguidedly attempting to cash in on nostalgia would do great.
Now? Not so much. Even if the movie is amazing, I don't think it'll do well.
Mr. Pointy
Member
I think the Rotten Tomatoes will probably end up around the mid-60% mark.
plasmawave
Banned
greycolumbus
The success of others absolutely infuriates me.
Rolfe admits he's biased. He gives the film credit by saying it could be good. He'd probably tell you he's not watching it for petty reasons. I don't understand the vitriol.
I'm actually excited to see his followup video.
I'm actually excited to see his followup video.
- Status