Support NeoGAF

[B33]

If the trailer fails to sell you on the movie then it's not his fault for not wanting to see it.
This is not a new concept.

If you decide a movie is awful before seeing it and feel the need to formally announce this two months before its release, don't be upset when you lose credibility and receive criticism for it.

 

[EGM1966]

Not sure if it deserved its own thread or not.

Patton Oswalt’s Defense Of The New ‘Ghostbusters’ Movie Turns Ugly When Twitter Trolls Take Aim At His Deceased Wife

Oh that's real, real low. Fuck that.

 

[plasmawave]

If you decide a movie is awful before seeing it and feel the need to formally announce this two months before its release, don't be upset when you lose credibility and receive criticism for it.

So the problem you have with him is the fact that he committed a terrible sin of making a video explaining why he's not interested in seeing the movie?
Get the fuck out of here with your childish bullshit.

 

[Lupercal]

If you decide a movie is awful before seeing it and feel the need to formally announce this two months before its release, don't be upset when you lose credibility and receive criticism for it.

Trailers, how do they work?

 

[patapuf]

If you decide a movie is awful before seeing it and feel the need to formally announce this two months before its release, don't be upset when you lose credibility and receive criticism for it.

The huge shitstorm/social media outrage because of his video and the kinds of insults thrown his way are not "critisism".

It's the same kind of blind hatred and fanboyism the trailers of the movie are getting, exept it's a random youtube video on the topic out of hundreds. It's bizzare.

 

[Azoor]

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.

You forget that these two are not nearly as popular and as dearly beloved as Ghostbusters. He did it because he thought it was expected for him to review it and he simply said he does not want to and he laid down his reasons.

If he wanted attention get would have reviewed both trailers and went to see the movie to review it.

 

[BobbyRobby]

I think James is sending a positive message. Don't waste your time consuming media you are almost certain you will dislike just to complain about it.

That's not being a man baby. That's opting out of a worthless endeavor. A lot of pepple would be better off doing that, rather than obsessively attacking or defending media. That is immature behavior.

It's so bizarre that his video has been singled out and generated so much vitriol.

Maybe because it is what clickbait bloggers and people who make their careers creating controversy on social media fear most. There's no story to sell people.

If people really love something you will get their attention, and if people really hate something you still get it, but if people just don't give a fuck, there's nothing to sell.

 

[greycolumbus]

It's important to note that he's not just telling people that he's not seeing the new movie. He's also doing a video about Ghostbusters 3 and is prefacing it. This explains why the video is 2 months early.

 

[B33]

So the problem you have with him is the fact that he committed a terrible sin of making a video explaining why he's not interested in seeing the movie?
Get the fuck out of here with your childish bullshit.

What a rational response.

 

[SilentRob]

I think James is sending a positive message. Don't waste your time consuming media you are almost certain you will dislike just to complain about it.

That's not being a man baby. That's opting out of a worthless endeavor. A lot of pepple would be better off doing that, rather than obsessively attacking or defending media. That is immature behavior.

It's so bizarre that his video has been singled out and generated so much vitriol.

Maybe because it is what clickbait bloggers and people who make their careers creating controversy on social media fear most. There's no story to sell people.

Yeah, I'm with you. It's not like he tried to spin the death of a previous cast member into something positive because, hey, "at least now he doesn't have to see this shit" Nah. No reason to be upset. He just calmly stated his absolutely valid opinion. Fuck Patton Oswalt and all those clickbait bloggers!

 

[plasmawave]

What a rational response.

Right back at ya with your response to his video, pal.

 

[Fusebox]

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?

TR and RC don't have anywhere near the same pervasive level of nostalgia as GB, and not only that but the TR and RC remake trailers weren't steaming piles of shit like the GB remake trailers are either.

 

[B33]

Trailers, how do they work?

Time and time again trailers have proven to not be a fair representation of the final product.

The huge shitstorm/social media outrage because of his video and the kinds of insults thrown his way are not "critisism".

It's the same kind of blind hatred and fanboyism the trailers of the movie are getting, exept it's a random youtube video on the topic out of hundreds. It's bizzare.

There have been good and fair editorials about James Rolfe's reaction that I'd count as criticism.

You forget that these two are not nearly as popular and as dearly beloved as Ghostbusters. He did it because he thought it was expected for him to review it and he simply said he does not want to and he laid down his reasons.

If he wanted attention get would have reviewed both trailers and went to see the movie to review it.

Maybe he should have waited until the movie hits theaters before declaring that it's bad and saying "At least he [Harold Ramis] isn't alive to see this shit."?

 

[B33]

Right back at ya with your response to his video, pal.

Okay. It's totally rational that you're incensed and think I'm "childish" because you don't like my opinion.

You also used hyperbole in your rebuttal that didn't represent what I said, but that's totally rational, too.

 

[Averon]

You forget that these two are not nearly as popular and as dearly beloved as Ghostbusters. He did it because he thought it was expected for him to review it and he simply said he does not want to and he laid down his reasons.

If he wanted attention get would have reviewed both trailers and went to see the movie to review it.

This. If the aim from James was just to get attention, he would have just did a review of the trailer roasting it. If his aim was to get clicks, a calm, mellow video stating he wasn't going to watch it is a terrible way to do so. That the video blew up they way it did was probably the last thing James thought would happen.

 

[plasmawave]

Okay. It's totally rational that you're incensed and think I'm "childish" because you don't like my opinion.

You also used hyperbole in your rebuttal that didn't represent what I said, but that's totally rational, too.

It's the reason you cited for criticizing him so. yes, it's appropriate.

 

[DR2K]

The internet a response to Ghostbusters is beyond irrational. I get disliking something, I understand opinions, but this goes way beyond that, this is rage, hatred and malice directed at a movie. It's incredibly weird.

 

[Fusebox]

The internet a response to Ghostbusters is beyond irrational. I get disliking something, I understand opinions, but this goes way beyond that, this is rage, hatred and malice directed at a movie. It's incredibly weird.

I'm on the internet responding to GB. Looks like shit to me, no hate, no malice. Kate McKinnon is probably my fave person on SNL right now but goddamn this movie looks unfunny.

 

[B33]

It's the reason you cited for criticizing him so. yes, it's appropriate.

My thoughts aren't "childish."

I've made a lot of posts in this thread explaining my criticism of James Rolfe while making it clear I don't hate him. I made it clear I understand where he's coming from, but don't agree with his thoughts.

You're can dislike my opinion, but dismissing it as "childish" is bullshit, to use your parlance.

 

[plasmawave]

My thoughts aren't "childish."

I've made a lot of posts in this thread explaining my criticism of James Rolfe while making it clear I don't hate him. I made it clear I understand where he's coming from, but don't agree with his thoughts.

You can dislike my opinion, but dismissing it as "childish" is bullshit, to use your parlance.

Your reasoning was he was seeking attention by uploading this video. Can't get any more childish than that.

 

[B33]

Your reasoning was he was seeking attention by uploading this video. Can't get any more childish than that.

You're using reductivism and have ignored most of what I said in my posts, which is bullshit, to again borrow from your parlance.

I said it felt attention-seeking and unnecessary and delved into more criticisms.

The primary point is that if you're a critic, it's bad form to declare a movie bad and announcing you're not going to see it before watching it.

 

[BobbyRobby]

Yeah, I'm with you. It's not like he tried to spin the death of a previous cast member into something positive because, hey, "at least now he doesn't have to see this shit" Nah. No reason to be upset. He just calmly stated his absolutely valid opinion. Fuck Patton Oswalt and all those clickbait bloggers!

That's a joke. Don't misconstrue the joke as him honestly trying to spin his death as a positive thing. And it's not even a joke made at his expense. He's clearly not happy Harold Ramos is dead, since he has so much respect for the guy.

And was Patton Oswalt that mad?? I saw the joke he made, and wonder why he bothered joining the dogpile, but that wasn't what I meant by an example of vitriol.

I would chill on the sarcasm too. You've laid it on it pretty thick there.

 

[Azoor]

Time and time again trailers have proven to not be a fair representation of the final product.



There have been good and fair editorials about James Rolfe's reaction that I'd count as criticism.



Maybe he should have waited until the movie hits theaters before declaring that it's bad and saying "At least he [Harold Ramis] isn't alive to see this shit."?

He never said the movie was bad, only the trailers were bad.

 

[Lothar]

My thoughts aren't "childish."

I've made a lot of posts in this thread explaining my criticism of James Rolfe while making it clear I don't hate him. I made it clear I understand where he's coming from, but don't agree with his thoughts.

You're can dislike my opinion, but dismissing it as "childish" is bullshit, to use your parlance.

You have a problem with him because he said doesn't want to see a movie. Sounds pretty damn childish to me.

 

[DR2K]

I'm on the internet responding to GB. Looks like shit to me, no hate, no malice. Kate McKinnon is probably my fave person on SNL right now but goddamn this movie looks unfunny.

Oh I understand disliking it. It looks pretty boring. That opinion doesn't bother me, it's how negative the response is that I have a problem with.

 

[Azoor]

The internet a response to Ghostbusters is beyond irrational. I get disliking something, I understand opinions, but this goes way beyond that, this is rage, hatred and malice directed at a movie. It's incredibly weird.

And I bet most of the Internet will forget the movie even exists by the end of the year.

 

[devilhawk]

I honestly think that the new trailer was better. Still doesn't look like a worthwhile movie, and I believe the reviews and box office will reflect that.

But it really was a better trailer. Low bar though.

 

[B33]

He never said the movie was bad, only the trailers were bad.

I've watched the video three times.

He outright says it looks bad and says, "At least he [Harold Ramis] isn't alive to see this shit." Amongst other things.

You have a problem with him because he said doesn't want to see a movie. Sounds pretty damn childish to me.

You're using reductivism to suit your narrative.

I've made it clear I don't dislike James Rolfe and understand where he's coming from, but don't agree with his thoughts. Criticizing someone doesn't mean I dislike them.

If you're a critic, it's bad form to declare something is bad and formally announce you aren't going to watch it before it's released.

 

[Fox Mulder]

The internet a response to Ghostbusters is beyond irrational. I get disliking something, I understand opinions, but this goes way beyond that, this is rage, hatred and malice directed at a movie. It's incredibly weird.

It's pathetic really. An all female Ghostbusters movie boils their blood. I kind of feel sorry for these sad human beings.

 

[plasmawave]

You're using reductivism and have ignored most of what I said in my posts, which is bullshit, to again borrow from your parlance.

I said it felt attention-seeking and unnecessary and delved into more criticisms.

The primary point is that if you're a critic, it's bad form to declare a movie bad and announcing you're not going to see it before watching it.

You think it's attention seeking and unnecessary because you don't like what he's saying in the video. Still sounds childish.

And no, there's nothing wrong with announcing anything. If he reviews the movie without seeing it then THAT's wrong.

 

[BassForever]

James is an entertainer first and foremost not a critic ffs

 

[devilhawk]

If you're a critic, it's bad form to declare something is bad and formally announce you aren't going to watch it before it's released.

Is there some critic oath that I don't know about? To put up youtube videos do you have to join some critic's guild?

 

[Lothar]

I've watched the video three times.

He outright says it looks bad and says, "At least he [Harold Ramis] isn't alive to see this shit." Amongst other things.


You're using reductivism to suit your narrative.

I've made it clear I don't dislike James Rolfe and understand where he's coming from, but don't agree with his thoughts. Criticizing someone doesn't mean I dislike them.

If you're a critic, it's bad form to declare something is bad and formally announce you aren't going to watch it before it's released.

Haha. He's not a critic.

You think a movie critic would ever have a top 30 film list that looks like this? http://www.listal.com/list/cinemassacres-top-30-favorite-films-paularnott

Ghostbusters is his #4 movie of all time. Easy to see why he feels stronger about this remake than a Total Recall remake.

 

[B33]

You think it's attention seeking and unnecessary because you don't like what he's saying in the video. Still sounds childish.

And no, there's nothing wrong with announcing anything. If he reviews the movie without seeing it then THAT's wrong.

I'm criticizing it because it's bad form, regardless of what his opinion is on the movie. I have zero expectations for the Ghostbusters remake and have felt skeptical about the project despite liking Paul Feig's past work, but I'm still going to watch it and form my own opinion.

Dismissing something as bad and formally announcing you aren't going to watch it is bad form. He calmly explains his reasoning and that's fine, but deciding the quality of something and not watching it because of this preconceived judgment hurts a critic's credibility.

 

[Azoor]

I've watched the video three times.

He outright says it looks bad and says, "At least he [Harold Ramis] isn't alive to see this shit." Amongst other things.


You're using reductivism to suit your narrative.

I've made it clear I don't dislike James Rolfe and understand where he's coming from, but don't agree with his thoughts. Criticizing someone doesn't mean I dislike them.

If you're a critic, it's bad form to declare something is bad and formally announce you aren't going to watch it before it's released.

He said it looks bad in the context of the trailers he saw. He didn’t say the movie itself was bad. What he saw was something that looked bad and criticized what he had seen in them.

And the Harold Ramis comment was to emphasis his sorrow that Ramis wasn't alive to make a new movie. And he would have been sad to see his creation in this state that was shown in the trailers.

 

[plasmawave]

I'm criticizing it because it's bad form, regardless of what his opinion is on the movie. I have zero expectations for the Ghostbusters remake and have felt skeptical about the project despite liking Paul Feig's past work, but I'm still going to watch it and form my own opinion.

Dismissing something as bad and formally announcing you aren't going to watch it is bad form. He calmly explains his reasoning and that's fine, but deciding the quality of something and not watching it because of this preconceived judgment hurts a critic's credibility.

You keep repeating the same shit over and over. I have no idea why you and others are trying so hard to put him on a same standard as other critics who actually review movies for a living.

Do you even know how trailers work? Usually people don't go see movies if the trailer does a poor job selling itself to you. Again, this is nothing new.

 

[devilhawk]

I'm criticizing it because it's bad form, regardless of what his opinion is on the movie. I have zero expectations for the Ghostbusters remake and have felt skeptical about the project despite liking Paul Feig's past work, but I'm still going to watch it and form my own opinion.

Dismissing something as bad and formally announcing you aren't going to watch it is bad form. He calmly explains his reasoning and that's fine, but deciding the quality of something and not watching it because of this preconceived judgment hurts a critic's credibility.

You keep saying terms like form and credibility. You keep forgetting you are talking about a youtuber who doesn't give a damn about your standards.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

Dismissing something as bad and formally announcing you aren't going to watch it is bad form. He calmly explains his reasoning and that's fine, but deciding the quality of something and not watching it because of this preconceived judgment hurts a critic's credibility.

It really doesn't though. If anything, it shows he knows he's biased because of his nostalgia blinders and wouldn't be able to give the movie a fair review.

 

[B33]

Is there some critic oath that I don't know about? To put up youtube videos do you have to join some critic's guild?

Haha. He's not a critic.

You think a movie critic would ever have a top 30 film list that looks like this? http://www.listal.com/list/cinemassacres-top-30-favorite-films-paularnott

Ghostbusters is his #4 movie of all time. Easy to see why he feels stronger about this remake than a Total Recall remake.

James is an entertainer first and foremost not a critic ffs

James Rolfe is a critic. His preference on films doesn't discredit him. He releases reviews and while his goal may be to entertain, he's still sharing his opinions and passing judgement on things, which is the definition of a critic.

To flip this around, how do you think he'd feel if someone announced they weren't going to watch his movie (Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie) because they decided it was bad based off its trailer? He wouldn't be happy about it because it's not fair.

This isn't meant to insult James Rolfe, as I haven't seen his film and I'm not going to pass judgment on it until I do so.

 

[blankempathy]

James Rolfe is an internet personality who occasionally reviews movies. Almost every youtuber who does any form of content when they get big enough practically does their own versions of movie reviews. Holding them to some higher standard as if they were Siskel and Ebert is laughable. Fans just like seeing their favorite e celebrity talk about films/games/food etc. And since a lot of people know hes a big ghostbuster fan I'm not surprised he put out a video saying hes not going to review it because I'm sure his fans are hounding him via social media to watch it. He picks what he likes and wants to talk about/review and goes with that. You don't see him reviewing every big game do you?

 

[Averon]

Even if James is a critic, he's not obligated to see the movie, nor is he obligated to not say a trailer is bad. What is the issue here? That he said a trailer he saw was bad?

 

[Henkka]

To flip this around, how do you think he'd feel if someone announced they weren't going to watch his movie (Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie) because they decided it was bad based off its trailer? He wouldn't be happy about it because it's not fair.

Why would anyone care? You sound like watching a movie is free. It's not. It's a product that is sold to you, and the trailer is an advertisement. Deciding not to buy something based on an advertisement not appealing to you is the most mundane thing ever.

Would you ever mount this argument in defense of Paul Blart: The mall cop? Or Jack & Jill?

 

[BobbyRobby]

James Rolfe is a critic. His preference on films doesn't discredit him. He releases reviews and while his goal may be to entertain, he's still sharing his opinions and passing judgement on things, which is the definition of a critic.

To flip this around, how do you think he'd feel if someone announced they weren't going to watch his movie (Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie) because they decided it was bad based off its trailer? He wouldn't be happy about it because it's not fair.

This isn't meant to insult James Rolfe, as I haven't seen his film and I'm not going to pass judgment on it until I do so.

"Don't Judge a book by it's cover" is a great way to live when judging people you meet on a personal basis. So I understand and respect where you're coming from with that.

To extend that to all media isn't feasible though. You will never have the time to consume it all, nor should you. No one should have a moral obligation to do so.

I would assume James feels the same way, and I don't think he would take it personally if you decided not to watch his movie based on its trailer.

 

[B33]

You keep repeating the same shit over and over. I have no idea why you and others are trying so hard to put him on a same standard as other critics who actually review movies for a living.

Do you even know how trailers work? Usually people don't go see movies if the trailer does a poor job selling itself to you. Again, this is nothing new.

Does James Rolfe not make a living from the reviews he puts out there? He quit his full-time job to produce reviews and other content.

Time and time again trailers have proven to not be a fair representation of the quality of a film. How many times have people been burned by bad movies with good trailers and surprised by good movies that had bad trailers?

You keep saying terms like form and credibility. You keep forgetting you are talking about a youtuber who doesn't give a damn about your standards.

It's not just my standard. Many critics, comedians, fans, and writers have called him out on it.

He said it looks bad in the context of the trailers he saw. He didn’t say the movie itself was bad. What he saw was something that looked bad and criticized what he had seen in them.

And the Harold Ramis comment was to emphasis his sorrow that Ramis wasn't alive to make a new movie. And he would have been sad to see his creation in this state that was shown in the trailers.

He outright says it looks bad and he doesn't expect it'll do well. You can argue semantics, but why would he release a video that says he's not going to see a movie if he hasn't already decided it's a bad movie?

The Harold Ramis comment was in poor taste. I get what he was going for but he doesn't know how Ramis would feel about this remake. Ghostbusters 3 didn't happen because Ghostbusters 2 was seen as a bad movie and they couldn't get the script to a quality that made everyone happy.

It wasn't made because the people involved didn't think it would have been good, particularly Bill Murray.

 

[Baloonatic]

Rolfe doesn't want to give the studio who made the film money because the trailers have showed him that this is not the Ghostbusters film he wants. That's it.

People should be allowed to use trailers to decide whether they want to see a film or not. Based on the trailers he thinks the film looks bad. If it turns out the film is great then they should have made better trailers.

 

[Audioboxer]

That James video is pretty calm and overall quite tame. No idea why it is getting such rage responses.

I was more raged at Ghostbusters that my parents got me as a kid for the master system one Christmas. That thing was a bitch for my younger self. Still played it like crazy.

 

[plasmawave]

Does James Rolfe not make a living from the reviews he puts out there? He quit his full-time job to produce reviews and other content.

Time and time again trailers have proven to not be a fair representation of the quality of a film. How many times have people been burned by bad movies with good trailers and surprised by good movies that had bad trailers?


It's not just my standard. Many critics, comedians, fans, and writers have called him out on it.



He outright says it looks bad and he doesn't expect it'll do well. You can argue semantics, but why would he release a video that says he's not going to see a movie if he hasn't already decided it's a bad movie?

The Harold Ramis comment was in poor taste. I get what he was going for but he doesn't know how Ramis would feel about this remake. Ghostbusters 3 didn't happen because Ghostbusters 2 was seen as a bad movie and they couldn't get the script to a quality that made everyone happy.

It wasn't made because the people involved didn't think it would have been good, particularly Bill Murray.

Mostly from AVGN stuff, sure. But he only talks about new movie every few months or so.
This is like if Angry Joe decides to not review Ghostbusters on his channel because he hates the trailer. Who gives a shit.

"He outright says it looks bad and he doesn't expect it'll do well. You can argue semantics, but why would he release a video that says he's not going to see a movie if he hasn't already decided it's a bad movie?"

Because he's a youtuber and that's what he does, and his fans have been asking about his opinion on the new movie. It's really not a big deal.

 

[blankempathy]

Does James Rolfe not make a living from the reviews he puts out there? He quit his full-time job to produce reviews and other content.

Time and time again trailers have proven to not be a fair representation of the quality of a film. How many times have people been burned by bad movies with good trailers and surprised by good movies that had bad trailers?


It's not just my standard. Many critics, comedians, fans, and writers have called him out on it.



He outright says it looks bad and he doesn't expect it'll do well. You can argue semantics, but why would he release a video that says he's not going to see a movie if he hasn't already decided it's a bad movie?

The Harold Ramis comment was in poor taste. I get what he was going for but he doesn't know how Ramis would feel about this remake. Ghostbusters 3 didn't happen because Ghostbusters 2 was seen as a bad movie and they couldn't get the script to a quality that made everyone happy.

It wasn't made because the people involved didn't think it would have been good, particularly Bill Murray.

James Rolfe started his internet career as a parody character who reviewed "bad games". Now that hes popular enough occasionally he does other stuff as just himself including reviews and other content. They're mostly about things he's interested in. Obviously hes not interested in watching the new Ghostbusters. Anyone who's watched him long enough knows this. The only things he's really obligated to do for his fans is put out new AVGNS every now and then. And maybe he's jumping to conclusions but I sure as hell know I never wanted to see certain movies or knew they were bad simply from their trailers and made zero effort to watch them. And who knows maybe this new ghostbusters will be great and he'll change his mind but lets be honest. Every bad movie is going to have its defenders. I remember when dragon ball evolution was going to come out. No matter how obviously bad the movie was going to be that didn't stop some people from defending it up to its release.

 

[the_milkybar_kid]

Still looks as funny as a Dentist waiting room. The jokes and gags are terrible.

 

[neorej]

Is AVGN the new Iron Man 3, Thor 2? Or is he now part of that cycle? I'm confused.