• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AVClub: Ghostbusters, Frozen, and the strange entitlement of fan culture

Status
Not open for further replies.
He entered the conversation regarding this film but because he's a Real Fan his comments about the film that he hasn't seen are above reproach? What?

You misunderstood. His video was only for people that AGREE with him. If you don't agree, you just don't watch the video and say nothing. Ignore it.

Just like Rolfe did with the Ghostbuster trail....oh wait.

That Rolfe's video has become some kind of lynchpin of this whole thing is embarrassing. If the flick had a scene of the original cast handing down proton packs to the women, he would want to see it.

That's what I got from it as well and it's not a big ask considering the history of the franchise, that is how it SHOULD be done.

If that's really truly what this is all about, why didn't he and all the others direct their rage at Bill Murray, who has done nothing but drag his feet and stubbornly said no about doing a 3rd movie, or even a "pass the torch" movie?

Try again guys.
 
Well, then lets make it "Cheap attempts to add Melissa McCarthy in leading roles", a stance that rings true to the both of us.

Of course, using the term "cheap" to describe his casting her is automatically derogatory.

Little things like that delegitimize otherwise straightforward, easy-to-understand decisions.

He thinks Melissa McCarthy is funny. He put her in a movie. That movie and Melissa McCarthy blew up as a result.

He made another movie. He put McCarthy back in it. That movie was successful, and Melissa McCarthy was a big part of why it succeeded.

So when he is given the opportunity to make Ghostbusters, and he puts Melissa McCarthy in it again, suddenly it's "cheap."

The usage of the term starts to take on the whiny, fraudulent tone of someone who sucks at fighting games blaming "cheapness" for their inability to understand how the fuckin' game works.

Plenty have also bitched to the high heavens about this and have straight up called it a remake of A New Hope-- which is complete bullshit-- I'm just saying that even when they do "stick" to something, people cry that it's not original enough. Not everyone, but it happens.

And this is another side-effect of that unearned sense of ownership the article is poking at. People are becoming fans because they liked a thing, but then they stay fans because it provides them a sense of ownership, and with that sense of ownership comes the adversarial nature that seeks to "protect" the thing they like, whether or not their understanding and definition of the thing they like is even accurate. it doesn't need to be accurate, I guess. It just needs to be somewhat present, and then at that point you can start hitting people in the shins with it so as to make sure anyone looking understands what a good fan you are.
 
It's so weird how you see his filmography and you think "cheap attempts to add women in leading roles", and I just think, "This guy likes working with Melissa McCarthy". Fascinating.
That is what I gathered as well. He casted with people he liked working with.
I doubt it was done to make a statement or anything (unless you are offended he likes female comedians more than male ones). It was just his vision.

I agree with you, he clearly likes working with McCarthy, she is a funny actress, it's almost his "comfort zone" and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as the movies turn out good I don't see the problem with it.
I think I am on your view of it.
Not going to judge it based on trailers because SpongeBob: Out of Water. The trailers were the worst thing ever.
However, the movie came out and was about SpongeBob and Plankton forming a friendship which was actually quite well done.

So yeah never judge based on a trailer is what I learned after that. Which in funny that they managed to make a trailer using just the last 30 minutes of a film every single time.
 

Nekofrog

Banned
That Rolfe's video has become some kind of lynchpin of this whole thing is embarrassing. If the flick had a scene of the original cast handing down proton packs to the women, he would want to see it.

It's pretty stupid that something as dumb as that is what makes a person decide they're not going to see the movie. Jesus christ, not everything has to be a "passing of the torch". We know Ghostbusters the movie existed. We don't have to acknowledge that it existed in the new movie if it's not about that.

Such a dumb hill to plant your flag on.

That's what I got from it as well and it's not a big ask considering the history of the franchise, that is how it SHOULD be done.

It isn't and it's a good thing the filmmakers did what they want instead of what fans are "demanding". This is a new Ghostbusters. We don't need the old mingling in with the new in the story like that.
 
The central idea of Ghostbusters is silly, men catching ghosts and people turning into dogs and fighting a god and a giant marshmellow man.

That is not why GB is so good, it was a character movie, it's the characters and humour style with some of the best humour not even being from jokes but from characters just being who they are.

If Murray had starred in a new GB movie it would not be the randomness and slapstick the new trailer presents itself as, that is a totally different kind of movie to what both GB 1 and 2 were. That is a big reason why so much hate for this, it's a different type ofmovie, not a different cast or the fact it a remake.

That's exactly the kind of movie Ghostbusters 2 was.

I'm still surprised at how many people lionize GB2 is a purely creative, wonderful work. I love it, but it's such a crass, commercial film on the surface. 100%. Bill Murray not wanting to come back? Yeah, part of that is down to the experience of working on GB2.

“The studio gets really crazy about it,” Murray told Variety during a sit-down interview for this week’s cover story. “What they really want to do is resurrect a franchise. The first one was a spectacular movie, one of the greatest movies. The second one was”–Murray makes an unimpressed sound. “It had some moves. It had a few good scenes in it.”

Murray is one of the few actors in Hollywood who can’t be bought. “People say, ‘Bill, you could get so rich!'” Murray says. “I’m ok.” He looks down at his red pants and plastic watch. “I don’t look it, but I’m doing ok.”

Over the years, Murray has looked over several treatments for a third film. “I read one that Danny [Aykroyd] wrote that was crazy bizarre and too crazy to comprehend,” Murray says. And then there was the script where his character died and returned as a ghost. “It was kind of funny, but not well executed,” Murray says. Sony was interested, and director Ivan Reitman (who made the first two films) tried to get Murray onboard. “It was clear he just didn’t want to engage,” Reitman says. “His head was in a whole different place as an actor. He wanted to do smaller roles where he didn’t have to take on the weight of the lead.”

Aykroyd recalls a similar conversation with Murray. “He said to me, ‘I’ve done the character,'” Aykroyd says. “I totally understand. The studio knew in their hearts that without Murray there may be nothing there. Plus, ‘Ghostbusters’ needs a shot of youth. It’s got to be handed to the new generation.”

He's done with Ghostbusters. He was always done since 2.

That's what I got from it as well and it's not a big ask considering the history of the franchise, that is how it SHOULD be done.

Wouldn't happen because the guy in your avatar didn't want to. His cameo in this was probably all he was willing to do in relation to Ghostbusters.
 

Lothar

Banned
He entered the conversation regarding this film but because he's a Real Fan his comments about the film that he hasn't seen are above reproach? What?

His comments aren't above reproach. But if you reproach and call him a sexist, at least have reasons. That way you wouldn't look stupid.
 

PKrockin

Member
I only just yesterday watched James's video on Ghostbusters and the reaction to it.

It’s probably safe to say that James Rolfe does not consider himself a sexist. Rolfe, apparently better known as the “Angry Video Game Nerd,” has bravely crossed over from the world of video game crit into a broader discussion about movies via his internet-famous video wherein he announces his intentions to not see or, as such, review the upcoming remake of the 1984 film Ghostbusters. For many people, the decision not to see a particular film does not require a lengthy video announcing that intention (if it did, just imagine how many minutes of internet video would have been dedicated to Norm Of The North). But the 2016 version of Ghostbusters is different.
I'm sorry, but I had to stop reading here, at the first paragraph. All the reasons given here that James is a sexist have explanation with a little context. James "crossed over" from video game criticism (except he was never a video game critic) to movie discussion immediately. You can see on his front page he's been discussing movies for nearly 10 years. It was not spurred on by Ghostbusters having a female cast. Horror movies are his passion and the AVGN was a fun joke he recorded on VHS that happened to explode in popularity.

Making a video about not seeing this movie in particular is not evidence of him being sexist. He's known to be a huge Ghostbusters fan but to my knowledge he hadn't said anything about the new one for months after the female cast was announced. His fans were surely asking him over and over what he thought of it, but he waited a while to make a decision on whether to see it. Finally, as the trailers were released and he thought they had bad jokes and special effects, he decided not to go.

The video being some 6 minutes long is not proof he's so sexist he had to rant about it forever, it's proof people tend to ramble when they start a vlog. 6 minutes for a vlog is not even close to long, especially on a subject you have attachment to. The rambling then diverges into other topics, such as his pet peeve of remakes or sequels using the same name as the original movie, which he first talked about ages ago. Again, not evidence of sexism, just thoughts consistent with long-held opinions.

There was definitely a lot of sexist reactions after the Ghostbusters announcement hit. I can't believe this one, with a very chill guy articulating generally reasonable opinions, is the go-to smoking gun example of sexist fanboy rage.
 
This is the misunderstanding that I think the article is getting at though:

They don't.

Not really. They can voice their opinion, they can be displeased/angry, all that. They can not go. They can even make a video about why they're not going, ill-advised as that might be (especially if they're a YouTube star whose entire career is based off humorously reviewing bad interpretations of childhood properties). But fans having the right to express an opinion on the quality of the media they consume is not the same thing as fans having the right to creatively influence the media themselves.

Like, the possibility of toning back the fandom or leaving it completely isn't even an option for a lot of people - and it should be. It's not even considered, usually. Instead, fans believe, as you just put forth, that they're owed a seat at the decisionmaking table. Like they're stockholders who deserve to attend the board meetings.

(this viewpoint isn't dissuaded by many people's voluntary surrender to executive-think that causes them to replace words like "story" and "character" with "IP" and "Franchise")

That sense of ownership and its ensuing entitlement is part of the growing disillusionment that gets people frustrated and heated over their media like they do. That seems to be what the article is poking at.

edit: Thanks for that post, Doc.

I don't think they should make ANY decisions creatively. I simply meant fans of the original material should voice their opinion.

I agree with everything else.

But it shouldn't come as a surprise your new reboot is getting terrible reactions when it doesn't seem to try to appeal to original fans.

As far as the new Ghostbusters goes... I don't think the new Ghostbusters looks terrible, but it doesn't look good. My wife and I are still going to see it though.
 
That Rolfe's video has become some kind of lynchpin of this whole thing is embarrassing. If the flick had a scene of the original cast handing down proton packs to the women, he would want to see it.

I guess my question is, how would this actually change the quality of the film? If you had that scene, it's the only scene they're really in, would people all of a sudden be okay with the whole shebang? Would the writing, acting, directing, story, and everything that comes together that actually comprises the quality of the film change just because, hey brother, *pat on the back* it's the original dudes and they're continuing directly from that, fuck yeah? I mean, is the sense of continuity so important to people that it would literally dictate their entire fucking opinion about the movie? Let alone the existence of it?

If so, I say god damn.
 

Eidan

Member
Well, then lets make it "Cheap attempts to add Melissa McCarthy in leading roles", a stance that rings true to the both of us.

Which would again make me scratch my head. Unless you also consider Scorcese's work with DiCaprio, or Michael Caine's habitual appearances in Nolan's films to be cheap too.

I dunno. I can't help but shake the feeling that a lot of the backlash against the new Ghostbusters movie is because the Ghostbusters are WOMEN, and that a lot of the other reasons given stem from that central problem, or are said to deflect attention away from it. Could be wrong though.
 

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
His comments aren't above reproach. But if you reproach and call him a sexist, at least have reasons. That way you wouldn't look stupid.

People are going to look for why he is treating this film differently. Did he see Star Trek 09? Or Godzilla 98? Honest question.
 

Kinyou

Member
There was definitely a lot of sexist reactions after the Ghostbusters announcement hit. I can't believe this one, with a very chill guy articulating generally reasonable opinions, is the go-to smoking gun example of sexist fanboy rage.
Yeah, it's strange especially since there's no shortage of people spouting the most vile shit about the movie.
This is the misunderstanding that I think the article is getting at though:

They don't.

Not really. They can voice their opinion, they can be displeased/angry, all that. They can not go. They can even make a video about why they're not going, ill-advised as that might be (especially if they're a YouTube star whose entire career is based off humorously reviewing bad interpretations of childhood properties). But fans having the right to express an opinion on the quality of the media they consume is not the same thing as fans having the right to creatively influence the media themselves.

Like, the possibility of toning back the fandom or leaving it completely isn't even an option for a lot of people - and it should be. It's not even considered, usually. Instead, fans believe, as you just put forth, that they're owed a seat at the decisionmaking table. Like they're stockholders who deserve to attend the board meetings.

And how is Rolfe doing this? I don't see the video going beyond him voicing his opinion
 

Beartruck

Member
In ghostbusters case, they are making a movie 2 decades after the fact precisely because they want the money of longtime fans. If you want their money, prepare to deal with their expectations of what it should be.
 

Nekofrog

Banned
Well in that case the movies marketing shouldn't be leaning on " 30 years ago, four friends" etc.

And also, the old cast are in the new movie, just not playing the original characters, seems a bit odd that they even decided to do that though quite frankly, it's almost like it trying really hard to be it's own thing but then isn't confident enough to completely let go of the original.

Leaning on? It was an introducing sentence to a trailer to let people know that they acknowledge what came before it, but that this was going to be something new and different. It was a throwaway marketing line made by someone who produced trailers that had 0 involvement with the creation of the film, and it was dropped right after.

In ghostbusters case, they are making a movie 2 decades after the fact precisely because they want the money of longtime fans. If you want their money, prepare to deal with their expectations of what it should be.

Here's an uncomfortable truth about the new Ghostbusters movie that I feel a LOT of people don't want to admit: The studio doesn't give a crap about what the old fans think of it. They're not hedging their bets on the old fans. If they were, it would've been a direct continuation with a lame attempt at "passing the torch".

The studio is in this with new blood to make new generations of fans and if the old ones are onboard for the ride then that's awesome, too. This is one of the reasons so many fanboys who have an irrational claim to the Ghostbusters movie are so out of synch with what's going on. This is a new Ghostbusters movie, but it's not a new Ghostbusters movie specifically for YOU. Just like the original Ghostbusters movie wasn't just for YOU.
 

Big One

Banned
It isn't and it's a good thing the filmmakers did what they want instead of what fans are "demanding". This is a new Ghostbusters. We don't need the old mingling in with the new in the story like that.
If that's the case then why are all of the ghosts reused from the previous movies as well as gags and scenes that hint at being a recreation of Ghostbusters 1? What's "new" about Ghostbusters 2016 other than it's cast?
 

GAMEPROFF

Banned
People are going to look for why he is treating this film differently. Did he see Star Trek 09? Or Godzilla 98? Honest question.
He doesnt really care for Star Trek at all and disliked Godzilla 98 a lot. He is a giant fan of the japanese Godzilla.

But what does that matter? I like a couple of movies and dont really care when they get bad reboots, but get pissed, too when they fuck up reboots of my favorie things, too. Its not the same.
 
I'm sorry, but I had to stop reading here, at the first paragraph.

You should keep reading, because there's way more to the article than that.

It's not really about James Rolfe. That's part of the reason there was even a backlash to his video: None of this is about James Rolfe. Or anyone who identifies with James Rolfe. Or whatever the Frozen equivalent of James Rolfe is. It's not about those people, but about people being very certain (and very loudly certain) that it should be about them! And anything that isn't taking them and their percieved ownership into account (and taking it very seriously) is wrong and unfair, both to them and to the thing they're such a big fan of.

Rolfe is simply the easy in to discussing this overinflated sense of ownership. But he's not the real subject of the article. We are.
 
I just feel the bare minimum when rebooting a franchise like this is to at the very least do some kind of "hand down" from the old cast. A passing of the torch etc.

I get that, and there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea. But it wouldn't outright change the quality of the proceedings. Having a hand me down ceremony, in addition to probably feeling forced, wouldn't prevent, nor dictate anything. I mean, Murray wouldn't want to do it, Ramis is gone, so would you really want Dan and Ernie being the only two left handing some fucking proton packs to Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy? Like, all I'm saying is just a few seconds of rational thought!
 
Because the narrative has been written that people are sexist meanies to this film. So any actual criticism of the poor marketing/quality trailers/casting is met with "you're sexist" retorts.
Pretty much. It looks like shit. You can win Internet points for chalking the criticism up to sexism in a think piece, but opinions are subjective things that everyone, even fandoms, are entitled to.
 
Didn't you just say in the other Ghostbusters thread how you were probably a "bigger Ghostbusters fan than anyone" (paraphrased) to try and validate your opinion though Bobby?

I think he meant it in that he's also a huge fan but one that can approach the new film with an open mind; despite being a fan. Not that I want to put words in his mouth, but that's just what I took away from it. Considering the psychological ticking of some people, some may accuse him of not being a "true fan" for even remotely looking forward to it.
 
I guess my question is, how would this actually change the quality of the film? If you had that scene, it's the only scene they're really in, would people all of a sudden be okay with the whole shebang? Would the writing, acting, directing, story, and everything that comes together that actually comprises the quality of the film change just because, hey brother, *pat on the back* it's the original dudes and they're continuing directly from that, fuck yeah? I mean, is the sense of continuity so important to people that it would literally dictate their entire fucking opinion about the movie? Let alone the existence of it?

If so, I say god damn.

Why you using plural? Would 'people' want to see it? Would this whole sexist hullabaloo be over? Who knows
But Rolfe would want to see it.
The guy has talked about his Ghostbusters III fanfiction before, let him live
 
But Rolfe would want to see it.
The guy has talked about his Ghostbusters III fanfiction before, let him live

I think I can discuss Rolfe's viewpoints without wishing death upon the guy :p

But that's all I'm saying-- is it really so important that, if that happened in the first act, would the rest of the movie be okay simply because of that even if everything else played out the exact same way it would have otherwise? This is where I have to question the logic and/or sanity of some.
 
Didn't you just say in the other Ghostbusters thread how you were probably a "bigger Ghostbusters fan than anyone" (paraphrased) to try and validate your opinion though Bobby?

That was a weird misunderstanding people kept latching onto (although it kept being shown over and over again that people love to quote me but hate to actually read me) - the entire purpose of pointing out that I love the original movie, and maybe even more than others in the thread, was to highlight how little (if at all) that actually matters. I'm not bringing it up to validate anything, I'm bringing it up as a means to point out how invalid a metric it really is. My loving something doesn't mean I own it, or get to have a say in what direction it goes, or what form it takes. Pulling cards like that doesn't mean my voice gets to be louder and my hand gets to take up more of the wheel. It just means I'm indulging that sense of fannish pride to help convince myself I know what I'm talking about and I haven't been wasting my time.

But of course I have. Wasting my time is the whole fucking point.
 

The_Kid

Member
People get really upset when the notion of sexism or racism appears, like inferring something may be a sexist or racist action automatically equates the person as a sexist or racist. That's who they are now and they can never escape it.

I feel like if people would be more open to the idea that most people have committed some sort of prejudiced action at some point and that it doesn't make you an evil person, maybe it wouldn't cause extreme levels of defense. Maybe it would let people see where others are coming from.

It is just a thought.

Edit: Not trying to say that everyone is being sexist. It is just that even the notion of a section of male fans going out of their way to go against this film with prejudiced reasoning seems to cause some people to assume that all men are being labeled by association.
 

Beartruck

Member
Also, I really cant take the author seriously when he calls Ghostbusters 2 a pretty good movie. That film has a lot of problems.
 

patapuf

Member
Fanculture does get overboard and they shouldn't dictate the creative process.

However, rebooting popular 20 year old movies with direct references and everything, that means you want to tap into nostalgia. You can't expect people nostalgic about something to not have set expectations. If you aren't willing to deal with that, don't tap into nostalgia.

I think the reaction (and the reaction to the reactions) are silly, but they can't have been surprising to anyone.
 

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
In ghostbusters case, they are making a movie 2 decades after the fact precisely because they want the money of longtime fans. If you want their money, prepare to deal with their expectations of what it should be.

Who said this is just for fans of the original? Maybe they want to get a whole new audience with a formula that worked before. That's the problem. These movies aren't just for "True Ghostbusters Fans." It's major wide release film. They want everyone they can get. Fans will probably see any garbage with the name on it, just so they can complain. Why don't people give Michael Bay expectations of what Transformers should be? Why is there no backlash after he shits one of those films out again and again? No massive down voting of those trailers?

It's a product. It always has been, it always will be. Just because they remake something doesn't mean that they're only aiming to get people who saw the original, otherwise a franchise would just continue shrinking over time. Some of the most beloved films are remakes that people don't even know are remakes. It isn't some new phenomenon, we just have access to a constant stream of information and are more informed about what has existed.
 
In ghostbusters case, they are making a movie 2 decades after the fact precisely because they want the money of longtime fans. If you want their money, prepare to deal with their expectations of what it should be.

They care about the old fans as much as Michael Bay cares about classic TF fans. Which is to say, not at all. Branding is most there to get people to at least try the film due to familiarity's sake.
 
The comments about Feig having an agenda with Ghostbusters do remind me of the Doctor Who gay agenda comments from years back. Showrunner Russel T. Davis was featuring more gay and bisexual characters on the show and some people took offense to that, citing some sort of agenda on his part. RTD is surrounded by people who are both straight and gay so why wouldn't that reflect in his work? Also, what's so bad with having an agenda to feature a group that isn't well represented to begin with? What's so bad about having an agenda to feature women leads in your comedy films?

Feig has his thing.
Shane Black loves writing buddy detective films.

People write what they like and know. It works.
 

MC Safety

Member
When I was 8 I wrote to Marvel Comics. Even as a stupid elementary school kid I knew I had no right to expect the company would take my letter as a demand and alter its product accordingly.
 

Fusebox

Banned
When I was 8 I wrote to Marvel Comics. Even as a stupid elementary school kid I knew I had no right to expect the company would take my letter as a demand and alter its product accordingly.

But you went and did it anyway you goddamn entitled monster.
 

LionPride

Banned
Do niggas have an issue with female leads? Seriously, it seems like people got so many issues with having a woman be a lead instead of males
 
Of course, using the term "cheap" to describe his casting her is automatically derogatory.

Little things like that delegitimize otherwise straightforward, easy-to-understand decisions.

He thinks Melissa McCarthy is funny. He put her in a movie. That movie and Melissa McCarthy blew up as a result.

He made another movie. He put McCarthy back in it. That movie was successful, and Melissa McCarthy was a big part of why it succeeded.

So when he is given the opportunity to make Ghostbusters, and he puts Melissa McCarthy in it again, suddenly it's "cheap."

The usage of the term starts to take on the whiny, fraudulent tone of someone who sucks at fighting games blaming "cheapness" for their inability to understand how the fuckin' game works.

Nah, stop tone policing me to defend white overprivileged directors. Cheap perfectly describes a movie where the director did not even try hard to come up with a decent script
 
When I was 8 I wrote to Marvel Comics. Even as a stupid elementary school kid I knew I had no right to expect the company would take my letter as a demand and alter its product accordingly.

You can ask. Your ideas might not be any good, but you can ask.

Asking isn't bad, but some ideas are just dumb.

I don't have any ill-will towards people who want a female James Bond. I just disagree with their desired change. The problem is when we start making it all personal, which is happening to a great degree. I do it sometimes and have to work myself back. It's not healthy. We're all passionate, we just need to be able to sit down and have a reasonable discussion at the end of the day and ultimately realize that the powers don't give a shit about anything else except for the dollars in our pocket.
 
His comments aren't above reproach. But if you reproach and call him a sexist, at least have reasons. That way you wouldn't look stupid.

Rereading the article, I really don't think the thesis of the article is that James is sexist, it's using his video as a jumping off point to discuss the issues of fandoms and their sense of entitlement and how that intersects with how the media we consume can be impacted by this growing phenomenon. It's a bit messy but this is a really messy subject.
 

Lothar

Banned
People are going to look for why he is treating this film differently. Did he see Star Trek 09? Or Godzilla 98? Honest question.

It's fine to ask questions unless you call him a sexist or write bad articles on the internet before you get the answer. Ghostbusters is one of his favorite movies. He made videos of himself going to locations from the movie. I've never seen that kind of fandom from him on Star Trek. I'm not sure he even cares about Star Trek. Godzilla98 came out when he was a teenager. Maybe that's what taught him not to see bad remakes. He made a review complaining about how it was nothing like the original, pretty much his exact criticism of the Ghostbusters trailer.
 
Cheap perfectly describes a movie where the director did not even try hard to come up with a decent script

Except you haven't seen the movie, and you haven't read the script, so whether I'm actually tone policing you or not, you don't really know what you're talking about, which is why your use of the word "cheap" plays as cheaply as it does. There's nothing solid behind it. It's an empty derogatory attached to zero support.
 

Fusebox

Banned
Do niggas have an issue with female leads? Seriously, it seems like people got so many issues with having a woman be a lead instead of males

There's some um, people out there that are chauvinistic and sexist and have irrational hatred towards this movie solely because of the female cast.

I'd argue there's a shit-tonne more people who just think this movie looks shit based on the trailers and couldn't give a damn about the actors gender.
 

Kalentan

Member
This goes the other way too. Fandoms have also gone & created ideas or narratives that they so wholeheartedly believe in that they become utterly incensed if they don't get their way. It's not just a property/idea has to remain the same it starts off as - it also needs to bend to the will of the fans whenever they see fit.

But this starts a larger conversation of intellectual control of a 'thing' once it a fandom exists around it, or at the very least once it becomes profitable.

Yup. I honestly hate it. Granted, yeah, I wish shows or games would do x or y, but I also don't expect them to bend to my or anyone elses will to do x or y.

Nearly (not always, there are rare exceptions) any time shows begin to pander to the fanbase, it always gets worse.

Then again, what do I know? I'm almost Anti-Shipper at this point. Though that's probably cause I always fear Showrunners bending to the will of the shippers. xD
 
Except you haven't seen the movie, and you haven't read the script, so whether I'm actually tone policing you or not, you don't really know what you're talking about, which is why your use of the word "cheap" plays as cheaply as it does. There's nothing solid behind it. It's an empty derogatory attached to zero support.

The trailers say it all. Unless those have absolutely nothing to do with the actual movie.
 

patapuf

Member
They care about the old fans as much as Michael Bay cares about classic TF fans. Which is to say, not at all. Branding is most there to get people to at least try the film due to familiarity's sake.

Sure, but branding, as the term implies, comes with a set amount of expectations - it's after all, a brand.

Using it is convenient but it doesn't mean you can use it and people don't care.

Even if fans are undeservedly "entitled", they are there and they are usually the loudest when their expectations are disappointed. That's not a surprise to anyone, and imo, it's not even a bad thing. If you want to play on nostalgia, you already gave up some creative freedom for an existing audience.
 

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
It's fine to ask questions unless you call him a sexist or write bad articles on the internet before you get the answer. Ghostbusters is one of his favorite movies. He made videos of himself going to locations from the movie. I've never seen that kind of fandom from him on Star Trek. I'm not sure he even cares about Star Trek. Godzilla98 came out when he was a teenager. Maybe that's what taught him not to see bad remakes. He made a review complaining about how it was nothing like the original, pretty much his exact criticism of the Ghostbusters trailer.

But how do we know it is a bad remake off a 2 minute trailer? Feig doesn't have a bad track record of films. That's the thing. People are saying "Look at the shitty trailer" but they've been down on this for over a year. The cast announcement thread here was 25 pages long...that's why people are saying the review is silly. You can not be interested in a film all you want, but when you start making claims like it isn't this or that based off two minutes of cut together footage, when you haven't read the script or seen the film, people call you out on your shit. It's just like people that see the Call of Duty trailers, say all the reasons why they're done playing the franchise, and then buy it so they can complain about it.
 

Big One

Banned
There's some um, people out there that are chauvinistic and sexist and have irrational hatred towards this movie solely because of the female cast.

I'd argue there's a shit-tonne more people who just think this movie looks shit based on the trailers and couldn't give a damn about the actors gender.
Really the idea of a female Ghostbusters is awesome. You can make a movie with cheeky humor with four badass females that don't rely on traditional stereotypes, kicking ghost ass and saving the world. Instead we get a movie with Adam Sandler style humor with four stereotypical characters, kicking ghost ass and saving the world. That's IF the trailers represent the tone of the movie, which most of the time (nowadays) they do. it doesn't help that the film is being filmed like a comedy rather than a science fiction movie like the original Ghostbusters was.
 
The trailers say it all. Unless those have absolutely nothing to do with the actual movie.

Yes. Trailers are always an accurate measure of a movie.

Great Movies With Questionable Trailers

Five trailers that were better than their movies

8 Trailers that were better than the actual movie

There's tons of articles on this.

Btw, have you seen the trailer for the original Ghostbusters? It was on the DVD release and presumably all re-releases after. It sucked.

I think you will find a lot of rage has been directed at Murray over the years for not wanting to do a third, especially considering many fans didn't think the second was as bad as he thought it was.

I mean it was his choice but it was a poor choice IMO.

No question that rage has been directed at Murray. That response was specific to blaming Feig and co. for not having a "true" sequel and not Murray.

Personally, I used to be ticked at Murray too, but as time went on, it made less and less sense to me to have the OG Ghostbusters in a 3rd movie decades after the last sequel. Plus, ideas to shoehorn him into a potential sequel (Vankman is a ghost!) just seemed incredibly stupid. Way stupid. I'm happier with an all-female reboot than some of the ideas Dan Aykroyd was throwing around.
 

Beartruck

Member
They care about the old fans as much as Michael Bay cares about classic TF fans. Which is to say, not at all. Branding is most there to get people to at least try the film due to familiarity's sake.
Funny because this reminds me of transformers: ticket sales will probably be good, fans will be butthurt, and the film will be shit.
 
I think people read you Bobby, I just think sometimes you believe they don't because they disagree with your opinion.

No, I'll acknowledge and address disagreements, although a lot of 'em I just let go because there's nothing to add to those disagreements besides "fair point" and it's not worth line-by-lining a post to unreadable death just to tell someone "fair point" every 3 sentences.

(People will sometimes misinterpret this as me "selectively quoting" and "ignoring" their whole posts, though)

It's the simple misunderstandings and the ill-executed "gotchas" that cause me to believe people quoting the whole thing back to me aren't actually reading the thing. Someone asking me a question that's already answered in the green box containing my words makes me think they didn't actually read any of them, because there's the answer - right there.

That was happening a lot in that other thread. But this is starting to get meta - talking about talking in regards to old threads is a cave of bullshit not worth spelunking here.

God Dayumm said:
The trailers say it all.

You know for a fact they don't if you've ever seen more than like, five trailers in your entire life.

If "the trailers said it all" you'd just watch trailers all day. You wouldn't actually go to a movie theater.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom