James Rolfe has been getting requests to review the movie since it was announced, by a lot of people. They would even comment in unrelated videos.
You mean 3 months before the movie was even released?
The proper response would have been to either ignore those requests entirely, or simply say "The movie hasn't come out yet I don't have a time machine. But when it does come out, I'm going to wait until I hear what other people have to say before I spend any money on it, because I'm not optimistic."
Instead, he outright refuses to consider even the possibility that this movie could be good. And that's a bad thing for a reviewer.
Hes allowed to.
Thats the amazing thing about opinions.
People have been asking him to review this before they announced it would have an all-female cast. A lot. Of. People.
And people are allowed to say it was a shitty thing to do.
Simply saying "he's allowed to do that" doesn't make his actions respectable or professional.
People have been asking him to review this before they announced it would have an all-female cast. A lot. Of. People.
Which is completely irrelevant unless you can prove that time travel is real and accessible to James Rolfe.
If some of your fans are too dumb to understand that it's literally impossible to review a movie that hasn't even been filmed yet, then the proper response is to ignore them.
+1
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
And people are allowed to say it was a shitty thing to do.
Simply saying "he's allowed to do that" doesn't make his actions respectable or professional.
People have been asking him to review this before they announced it would have an all-female cast. A lot. Of. People.
Which is completely irrelevant unless you can prove that time travel is real and accessible to James Rolfe.
If some of your fans are too dumb to understand that it's literally impossible to review a movie that hasn't even been filmed yet, then the proper response is to ignore them.
Are you looking for malice when there is simply disappointment and disinterest?
I included "insult to injury" because it's not a good sign. It's quite clearly a gimmick, and I completely understand the apprehension that follows.
Having two "X" chromosomes is a gimmick, now?
I should let all my female co-workers know that they should all be regarded as gimmicks from now on.
Finding out that they're taking your beloved film/franchise and starting it off with a gender swap is really not encouraging.
Why isn't it encouraging?
It speaks to lack of creativity, and honestly smacks of a cash grab.
This seems to be a complete non-sequitur. They have women in the leading roles, therefore, cash grab.
The movie reviewer deciding not to see it was A Thing.
Not seeing a movie is fine.
Not liking a movie a fine.
Being a professional movie reviewer and concluding that it's total shit before the movie before the movie has even come out when the movie is already getting shit upon by MRA and hatemongers is not.
As a man, I was told if I didn't like/didn't see this movie I was a mysogynist, a man baby, in my parents basement, etc.
[Citation needed]
99% of America has yet to see this movie without being called a misogynist.
Plenty of film reviewers have successfully posted negative reviews without being called a misogynist.
If you are being called a misogynist, then you're probably doing something more than what you're claiming.
Yes, a gender swap is a gimmick. If I saw "New Charlie's Angels, but with MEN" I would also call that a gimmick. Cuz it is. Nice straw man though.
It's not encouraging because it suggests they don't really have new and awesome ideas and want to make (as I already described) "Your Favorite Movie With One Big Difference!!!!" It's a gimmick. And yes, it feels like a cash grab when Hollywood takes a beloved franchise and reboots it with a big gimmick. Since when are we super sympathetic and trusting of Hollywood's reboot trend?
Finally, you asking for a citation is hilarious considering your entire argument is "well I bet they didn't watch the movie and just rated it 1" with literally zero evidence besides review numbers that don't match up to what you feel the movie should get. And yeah, mysogynist gets thrown around ALOT on the Internet, even on these forums, often without cause. It's kind of a go-to for people trying to virtue signal or make someone shut up because they find thier pov inconvenient.
Do MRAs and other obnoxious people on the internet exist. Yes.
Are they throwing needless muck at the movie and the cast and crew of this movie? Yes
Do they want this movie to fail as a victory against progressive movements and more female inclusion in their boys only franchise? Yes
Did the first trailer look like garbage and on the basis of a movie alone look like it was going to be a bad uninspired movie? Debatable, but to James it did.
Was Ghostbusters remake the movie James wanted to see as opposed to a true sequel? Clearly it wasn't.
Is he "aligning" himself with the goals of MRA? Only as such that He and them thought the movie looked bad.
Does he have to put a video out before the movies release saying he won't review it? That's up to him. But he knew a lot of fans would be asking so he wanted to be up front about it and his reasons why.
Is that fueling MRA flames? Yeah probably. But just because MRA geese are out there shouldn't be any deterrent whatsoever for James to speak his mind and express his reasons articulately. I'm not going to let the actions of a group of trolls censor anything I have to say even if we agree on the same thing (but for completely different reasons)
Is he "happily" doing that? We have no idea. I am of the opinion he made a video to address his fans and MRAs didnt even cross his mind once.
Does he want the new franchise to fail? Again we dont know that. To my knowledge hes only made one video regarding the remake and why he wouldnt review it. Its not like theres a wealth of video content from him all negative ripping into the remake.
Did that make AVGN the poster child to some MRA's? Yeah it did. But just because they latched on to him doesnt mean hes buddies with them.
Is AVGN a professional reviewer? Absolutely not. Hes a video content creator and is under no obligation to turn in a review to any website magazine or newspaper.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yes, a gender swap is a gimmick. If I saw "New Charlie's Angels, but with MEN" I would also call that a gimmick. Cuz it is. Nice straw man though.
I don't think you understand what a strawman is, since you just used one yourself.
Gender in Charlie's Angel's is the entire premise: "Three beautiful female agents." They had that concept before they had any storyline or cast, because they just wanted an excuse to ogle at ladies. If you changed the cast, the premise would stay the same.
Gender is "Ghostbusters" is purely incidental. The characters are male because the creators are male, and the creators wanted to cast themselves. And also because Hollywood back then wouldn't have allowed for a female cast, regardless of whether or not the creators would be okay with it. If you change the cast, there's no reason not to hire women instead of men, as long as they're willing to bust some ghosts.
An all male "Charlie's Angels" would be a gimmick because the original all female "Charlie's Angels" was a gimmick.
Are you going to claim that the all male cast of the original Ghostbusters was a gimmick, the same way you're claiming that the all female cast is?
I live in one of the few states where we had a female governor and two female US Senators. Is that a gimmick? Would it be a gimmick if all of them were men?
It's not encouraging because it suggests they don't really have new and awesome ideas and want to make (as I already described) "Your Favorite Movie With One Big Difference!!!!" It's a gimmick. And yes, it feels like a cash grab when Hollywood takes a beloved franchise and reboots it with a big gimmick. Since when are we super sympathetic and trusting of Hollywood's reboot trend?
By that logic, the original "Ghostbusters" was a cash grab as well. Or are you under the impression that Columbia wasn't interested in making money from it?
Finally, you asking for a citation is hilarious considering your entire argument is "well I bet they didn't watch the movie and just rated it 1" with literally zero evidence besides review numbers that don't match up to what you feel the movie should get.
So your counter argument is that that more a person is inclined to hate a movie, the more likely it is for them to pay to see it.
Would love to see your evidence of this.
And yeah, mysogynist gets thrown around ALOT on the Internet, even on these forums, often without cause. It's kind of a go-to for people trying to virtue signal or make someone shut up because they find thier pov inconvenient.
It's also a go-to for people to falsely claim accused of misogyny in order to deflect from the actual criticisms of their arguments. Which is what you and others you've done throughout the thread.
I haven't once accused James Rolfe of being a misogynist, but so many people will claim I did because that's easier to refute.
Does he have to put a video out before the movies release saying he won't review it? That's up to him. But he knew a lot of fans would be asking so he wanted to be up front about it and his reasons why.
The movie hadn't come out yet.
"I do not own a time machine" should be the only explanation required.
Is AVGN a professional reviewer? Absolutely not. Hes a video content creator and is under no obligation to turn in a review to any website magazine or newspaper.
That doesn't mean you're not a professional.
"Professional" doesn't mean "corporate."
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Does he have to put a video out before the movies release saying he won't review it? That's up to him. But he knew a lot of fans would be asking so he wanted to be up front about it and his reasons why.
The movie hadn't come out yet.
And?
Are you saying that youve never been able to discern whether or not you want to see a movie based on a trailer?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Does he have to put a video out before the movies release saying he won't review it? That's up to him. But he knew a lot of fans would be asking so he wanted to be up front about it and his reasons why.
The movie hadn't come out yet.
And?
Are you saying that youve never been able to discern whether or not you want to see a movie based on a trailer?
Thats completely delusional and wrong. You are attributing nefarious goals and thought processes to James he didnt express in that video at all. Hes not a professional reviewer he is a youtube personality
A person who makes money doing reviews is, by definition, a professional reviewer.
and he is under no obligation to review or not review anything he wants.
Sure. Except he's not being criticized for failing to review.
He's being criticized for shitting on a movie before the movie has even come out.
You think its completely justified labeling him a misogynist
Really?
Please show me where I called him a misogynist or defended people who did.
He didn't even shit on it. He was being honest in saying that the OG Ghostbusters is not just a movie for him, it's something very personal, and he just doesn't like that it's being rebooted. If anything, he was avoiding shitting on the new one, because he would not be able to give an objective review.
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
The DC thread aren't professional reviewers. And it's laughable that people are trying to deny that Rolfe is a professional reviewer while simultaneously claiming that he had to post something because his audience was demanding a review.
If Rolfe simply posted "Yeah, that movie looks like total shit" on a random internet forum or in the youtube comments section, no one would care. Instead, he posted in his response in his capacity as professional reviewer.
And apparently there's a parody of the James Rolfe non-review at the Observer:
The reasoning here is so simple, even possible future-fans of NBC’s Timeless should be able to follow it. As a diehard, absurdly devoted fan of Hulu’s 11.22.63, I feel like the market for stories about traveling through time to stop crime is full, dare I say to capacity. 11.22.63, which we now have to refer to as “the time travel show with James Franco,” is an unforgettable streaming experience, in which high-school English teacher Jake Epping travels through time to save John F. Kennedy’s life, and then spoilers he doesn’t! It has talking scarecrows, guys with clothespins on their dick, and even James Franco. NBC’s Timeless has NONE of those things, I assume, because why watch a show if you already know it’s not exactly what you want?
Look, it’s not just because the trailer looks bad enough to make me clutch my Official Branded 11.22.63 Fedora in horror. I mean, sure, the jokes are being delivered almost as if they’re not jokes and this is a totally different genre, and the Hindenburg effects are on par with this lame attempt at a Facebook Live stream I found on Youtube. It actually looks embarrassing when you compare it to 11.22.63, which managed to craft a lifelike, realistic character solely from CGI. Here, next to Franco, you can barely tell where the effect ends and reality begins.
Thinking back on this, my 16th re-watch of 11.22.63, I’m just JFK didn’t live to see this shit.
He didn't even shit on it. He was being honest in saying that the OG Ghostbusters is not just a movie for him, it's something very personal, and he just doesn't like that it's being rebooted. If anything, he was avoiding shitting on the new one, because he would not be able to give an objective review.
Doing that in the middle of a heated controversy is extremely bad timing.
He could have waited until after the other reviews were out, said the exact same things, and then no one would care.
Imagine if a judge said, "I'm going to recuse myself from this case, but I want everyone to know that the defendant is definitely guilty."
No one is mad at you for recusing yourself.
They're mad at you because you tainted the jury before the trial has even started.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You're taking the opinion of this guy waaaaaay too close to heart when you could just ignore it.
Are you talking to me?
Because I'm not the one who brought him up in the first place.
It's really silly for one side of the discussion to constantly tries to discuss a person -- and then whines that the other side should simply ignore him when the other side finally responds.
"Why is no one in this BLM thread talking about black on black crime? (Ten minutes later) OMG, guys, why are you talking about black on black crime so much?"
You're taking the opinion of this guy waaaaaay too close to heart when you could just ignore it.
Are you talking to me?
Because I'm not the one who brought him up in the first place.
It's really silly for one side of the discussion to constantly tries to discuss a person -- and then whines that the other side should simply ignore him when the other side finally responds.
"Why is no one in this BLM thread talking about black on black crime? (Ten minutes later) OMG, guys, why are you talking about black on black crime so much?"
Was that foontastic on page... geez, page 5?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
He didn't even shit on it. He was being honest in saying that the OG Ghostbusters is not just a movie for him, it's something very personal, and he just doesn't like that it's being rebooted. If anything, he was avoiding shitting on the new one, because he would not be able to give an objective review.
Doing that in the middle of a heated controversy is extremely bad timing.
He could have waited until after the other reviews were out, said the exact same things, and then no one would care.
Imagine if a judge said, "I'm going to recuse myself from this case, but I want everyone to know that the defendant is definitely guilty."
No one is mad at you for recusing yourself.
They're mad at you because you tainted the jury before the trial has even started.
I can't watch the video right now, so I can't be certain in this, but I don't think he tainted the jury. I will watch and get back to you.
FWIW I'm a moderate fan of AVGN and Ghostbusters, so I'm happy to engage this argument, even if it is silly.
He didn't even shit on it. He was being honest in saying that the OG Ghostbusters is not just a movie for him, it's something very personal, and he just doesn't like that it's being rebooted. If anything, he was avoiding shitting on the new one, because he would not be able to give an objective review.
Except the first couple of sentences he said "the trailer looks bad, so the movie is going to be bad, and all the other reviewers are going to watch it just to talk about how bad it is" and so forth. That's pretty hostile to begin with. If he had just said that the original(s) were near and dear to his heart and can't objectively watch the new one, (and just left it at that) then maybe people wouldn't care.
So why, exactly, is James Rolfe obligated to give Sony attention and money?
I have friends who refused to watch Robocop from the moment they saw the trailer, I guess that means they're misandrists?
If he did what Comicbookgirl19 did you guys would also be bitching, there is literally nothing James Rolfe could have done other than watch the movie and give it a glowing review that would meet with your approval
If someone is holding a gun to your head forcing you to evaluate internet critics blink twice so we know to send the cops
Is he "aligning" himself with the goals of MRA? Only as such that He and them thought the movie looked bad.
Does he have to put a video out before the movies release saying he won't review it? That's up to him. But he knew a lot of fans would be asking so he wanted to be up front about it and his reasons why.
Is that fueling MRA flames? Yeah probably. But just because MRA geese are out there shouldn't be any deterrent whatsoever for James to speak his mind and express his reasons articulately. I'm not going to let the actions of a group of trolls censor anything I have to say even if we agree on the same thing (but for completely different reasons)
I disagree. It is at the very least socially irresponsible to provide cover for trolls without at a minimum some kind of disclaimer. Especially when all you are bringing to the table is fanboy nonsense.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
You're taking the opinion of this guy waaaaaay too close to heart when you could just ignore it.
Are you talking to me?
Because I'm not the one who brought him up in the first place.
It's really silly for one side of the discussion to constantly tries to discuss a person -- and then whines that the other side should simply ignore him when the other side finally responds.
"Why is no one in this BLM thread talking about black on black crime? (Ten minutes later) OMG, guys, why are you talking about black on black crime so much?"
So why, exactly, is James Rolfe obligated to give Sony attention and money?
No one here has argued this, or most of the other things being attributed to his critics.
If he did what Comicbookgirl19 did you guys would also be bitching
You mean if he accused all other critics of being lying liars for having a different opinion?
Notice how no one in this thread has accused RLM of being lying liars for saying that the movie was unfunny and boring, because that's simply his opinion, and he's entitled to that.
there is literally nothing James Rolfe could have done other than watch the movie and give it a glowing review that would meet with your approval
Really? So what sort of backlash has RLM received so far for their review? Or Angry Joe? Or any of the negative reviewers on RT? "Oh no, some guy on a forum he doesn't read quoted a movie that he likes in order to refute a direct claim that he made!"
Have you ever considered that maybe there's a reason why James Rolfe is pretty the only much the only person you're able to single out as an example of a martyr? Like maybe that he decided to post his final judgement on the subject two months before the movie was even out. Why have the been no other martyrs in the time since the movie actually came out?
Schrodinger on
0
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
So, the dual wielding Holtzmann scene at the end was completely badass.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
You're taking the opinion of this guy waaaaaay too close to heart when you could just ignore it.
Are you talking to me?
Because I'm not the one who brought him up in the first place.
It's really silly for one side of the discussion to constantly tries to discuss a person -- and then whines that the other side should simply ignore him when the other side finally responds.
"Why is no one in this BLM thread talking about black on black crime? (Ten minutes later) OMG, guys, why are you talking about black on black crime so much?"
So why, exactly, is James Rolfe obligated to give Sony attention and money?
No one here has argued this, or most of the other things being attributed to his critics.
If he did what Comicbookgirl19 did you guys would also be bitching
You mean if he accused all other critics of being lying liars for having a different opinion?
Notice how no one in this thread has accused RLM of being lying liars for saying that the movie was unfunny and boring, because that's simply his opinion, and he's entitled to that.
there is literally nothing James Rolfe could have done other than watch the movie and give it a glowing review that would meet with your approval
Really? So what sort of backlash has RLM received so far for their review? Or Angry Joe? Or any of the negative reviewers on RT? "Oh no, some guy on a forum he doesn't read quoted a movie that he likes in order to refute a direct claim that he made!"
Have you ever considered that maybe there's a reason why James Rolfe is pretty the only much the only person you're able to single out as an example of a martyr? Like maybe that he decided to post his final judgement on the subject two months before the movie was even out. Why have the been no other martyrs in the time since the movie actually came out?
Cause nobody had watched the movie yet?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Is he "aligning" himself with the goals of MRA? Only as such that He and them thought the movie looked bad.
Does he have to put a video out before the movies release saying he won't review it? That's up to him. But he knew a lot of fans would be asking so he wanted to be up front about it and his reasons why.
Is that fueling MRA flames? Yeah probably. But just because MRA geese are out there shouldn't be any deterrent whatsoever for James to speak his mind and express his reasons articulately. I'm not going to let the actions of a group of trolls censor anything I have to say even if we agree on the same thing (but for completely different reasons)
I disagree. It is at the very least socially irresponsible to provide cover for trolls without at a minimum some kind of disclaimer. Especially when all you are bringing to the table is fanboy nonsense.
Let's agree to disagree. I don't think that any disclaimer is necessary. You think its socially irresponsible to provide a cover to trolls. I think that trolls are always going to exist in all forms no matter what and being deterred from speaking your mind is a form of censorship.
I'm trying to find where I said that Angry Joe or anyone got a negative backlash for their reviews
You inventing entire backstories for what you think the motivations of internet critics are has nothing to do with Ghostbusters so I'm going to bow out of this thread
I googled avgn and found a couple of articles with some collections of mean twitter posts.
But, you know, twitter
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I could be in the wrong here, but I really don't want this thread about the movie to be taken over by discussion about people acting shitty because of the movie. The shittiness of these people doesn't have any actual relation to this movie. Their sexist shittiness is an important topic worth discussion, just not here, maybe?
I disagree, the two subjects are intrinsically linked. The movie should take priority, but why do you want to ignore the circumstances occurring around it? That's going on whether we discuss it in this thread or not.
Question: is it the aim of every vodka to be completely tasteless? Why
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Question: is it the aim of every vodka to be completely tasteless? Why
Obviously Not
More seriously I'd say no. One of the best ones I've ever had was out of Copper Works in Seattle. They use a brewer's yeast, rather than a distillers/stripper yeast, and it had a slight sweetness to it. Not like flavored vodka sweetness, but just a little bit of something, and there was nothing added to it. It's just the various other non-ethanol byproducts of the distillation. I think they distill it up to like 196 proof before watering it back down, but that 2% makes a difference.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Is anyone else tired of this thread being solely discussion about youtubers, who have no relevant or worthwhile opinions to contribute here (as they are not present) and who made up their minds months ago?
Lord Palingtonhe.him.hisHistory-loving pal!Registered Userregular
Finally got to watch it this morning with my wife. We both really liked it! It wasn't perfect, but it was a fun movie. Will watch again, maybe in theaters, maybe on blu ray.
Really bummed to hear about what's going on with Leslie Jones. I kind of wish there was some sort of "Sorry the internet sucks, I really liked you in Ghostbusters! (also you seem like a cool person)" card I could sign.
Posts
Hes allowed to.
Thats the amazing thing about opinions.
People have been asking him to review this before they announced it would have an all-female cast. A lot. Of. People.
And people are allowed to say it was a shitty thing to do.
Simply saying "he's allowed to do that" doesn't make his actions respectable or professional.
Which is completely irrelevant unless you can prove that time travel is real and accessible to James Rolfe.
If some of your fans are too dumb to understand that it's literally impossible to review a movie that hasn't even been filmed yet, then the proper response is to ignore them.
Are you looking for malice when there is simply disappointment and disinterest?
Yes, a gender swap is a gimmick. If I saw "New Charlie's Angels, but with MEN" I would also call that a gimmick. Cuz it is. Nice straw man though.
It's not encouraging because it suggests they don't really have new and awesome ideas and want to make (as I already described) "Your Favorite Movie With One Big Difference!!!!" It's a gimmick. And yes, it feels like a cash grab when Hollywood takes a beloved franchise and reboots it with a big gimmick. Since when are we super sympathetic and trusting of Hollywood's reboot trend?
Finally, you asking for a citation is hilarious considering your entire argument is "well I bet they didn't watch the movie and just rated it 1" with literally zero evidence besides review numbers that don't match up to what you feel the movie should get. And yeah, mysogynist gets thrown around ALOT on the Internet, even on these forums, often without cause. It's kind of a go-to for people trying to virtue signal or make someone shut up because they find thier pov inconvenient.
No, they certainly arent.
Genderswapping CAN be, regardless of what the original gender that is being swapped was.
Are they throwing needless muck at the movie and the cast and crew of this movie? Yes
Do they want this movie to fail as a victory against progressive movements and more female inclusion in their boys only franchise? Yes
Did the first trailer look like garbage and on the basis of a movie alone look like it was going to be a bad uninspired movie? Debatable, but to James it did.
Was Ghostbusters remake the movie James wanted to see as opposed to a true sequel? Clearly it wasn't.
Is he "aligning" himself with the goals of MRA? Only as such that He and them thought the movie looked bad.
Does he have to put a video out before the movies release saying he won't review it? That's up to him. But he knew a lot of fans would be asking so he wanted to be up front about it and his reasons why.
Is that fueling MRA flames? Yeah probably. But just because MRA geese are out there shouldn't be any deterrent whatsoever for James to speak his mind and express his reasons articulately. I'm not going to let the actions of a group of trolls censor anything I have to say even if we agree on the same thing (but for completely different reasons)
Is he "happily" doing that? We have no idea. I am of the opinion he made a video to address his fans and MRAs didnt even cross his mind once.
Does he want the new franchise to fail? Again we dont know that. To my knowledge hes only made one video regarding the remake and why he wouldnt review it. Its not like theres a wealth of video content from him all negative ripping into the remake.
Did that make AVGN the poster child to some MRA's? Yeah it did. But just because they latched on to him doesnt mean hes buddies with them.
Is AVGN a professional reviewer? Absolutely not. Hes a video content creator and is under no obligation to turn in a review to any website magazine or newspaper.
An all women cast is not a gimmick, yet an all women cast can be a gimmick. Sufficient vs Necessary conditions.
This particular circumstance fits perfectly. A gender swap in either direction is pretty gimmicky.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Malice: Actively encouraging people people not to see the movie in the hopes that it tanks and everyone involved suffers for creating it
Disappointment: Seeing the movie and not liking it as much as you would have hoped to
Disinterest: Not saying anything
I don't think you understand what a strawman is, since you just used one yourself.
Gender in Charlie's Angel's is the entire premise: "Three beautiful female agents." They had that concept before they had any storyline or cast, because they just wanted an excuse to ogle at ladies. If you changed the cast, the premise would stay the same.
Gender is "Ghostbusters" is purely incidental. The characters are male because the creators are male, and the creators wanted to cast themselves. And also because Hollywood back then wouldn't have allowed for a female cast, regardless of whether or not the creators would be okay with it. If you change the cast, there's no reason not to hire women instead of men, as long as they're willing to bust some ghosts.
An all male "Charlie's Angels" would be a gimmick because the original all female "Charlie's Angels" was a gimmick.
Are you going to claim that the all male cast of the original Ghostbusters was a gimmick, the same way you're claiming that the all female cast is?
I live in one of the few states where we had a female governor and two female US Senators. Is that a gimmick? Would it be a gimmick if all of them were men?
By that logic, the original "Ghostbusters" was a cash grab as well. Or are you under the impression that Columbia wasn't interested in making money from it?
So your counter argument is that that more a person is inclined to hate a movie, the more likely it is for them to pay to see it.
Would love to see your evidence of this.
It's also a go-to for people to falsely claim accused of misogyny in order to deflect from the actual criticisms of their arguments. Which is what you and others you've done throughout the thread.
I haven't once accused James Rolfe of being a misogynist, but so many people will claim I did because that's easier to refute.
The movie hadn't come out yet.
"I do not own a time machine" should be the only explanation required.
That doesn't mean you're not a professional.
"Professional" doesn't mean "corporate."
And?
Are you saying that youve never been able to discern whether or not you want to see a movie based on a trailer?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
For reference see: the entire DC thread.
He didn't even shit on it. He was being honest in saying that the OG Ghostbusters is not just a movie for him, it's something very personal, and he just doesn't like that it's being rebooted. If anything, he was avoiding shitting on the new one, because he would not be able to give an objective review.
Said he wouldnt review the new GB movie before it came out.
Pissed in someones cornflakes apparently
The DC thread aren't professional reviewers. And it's laughable that people are trying to deny that Rolfe is a professional reviewer while simultaneously claiming that he had to post something because his audience was demanding a review.
If Rolfe simply posted "Yeah, that movie looks like total shit" on a random internet forum or in the youtube comments section, no one would care. Instead, he posted in his response in his capacity as professional reviewer.
And apparently there's a parody of the James Rolfe non-review at the Observer:
http://observer.com/2016/05/nbcs-timeless-no-review-i-refuse/
Doing that in the middle of a heated controversy is extremely bad timing.
He could have waited until after the other reviews were out, said the exact same things, and then no one would care.
Imagine if a judge said, "I'm going to recuse myself from this case, but I want everyone to know that the defendant is definitely guilty."
No one is mad at you for recusing yourself.
They're mad at you because you tainted the jury before the trial has even started.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Are you talking to me?
Because I'm not the one who brought him up in the first place.
It's really silly for one side of the discussion to constantly tries to discuss a person -- and then whines that the other side should simply ignore him when the other side finally responds.
"Why is no one in this BLM thread talking about black on black crime? (Ten minutes later) OMG, guys, why are you talking about black on black crime so much?"
Was that foontastic on page... geez, page 5?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I can't watch the video right now, so I can't be certain in this, but I don't think he tainted the jury. I will watch and get back to you.
FWIW I'm a moderate fan of AVGN and Ghostbusters, so I'm happy to engage this argument, even if it is silly.
Except the first couple of sentences he said "the trailer looks bad, so the movie is going to be bad, and all the other reviewers are going to watch it just to talk about how bad it is" and so forth. That's pretty hostile to begin with. If he had just said that the original(s) were near and dear to his heart and can't objectively watch the new one, (and just left it at that) then maybe people wouldn't care.
So why, exactly, is James Rolfe obligated to give Sony attention and money?
I have friends who refused to watch Robocop from the moment they saw the trailer, I guess that means they're misandrists?
If he did what Comicbookgirl19 did you guys would also be bitching, there is literally nothing James Rolfe could have done other than watch the movie and give it a glowing review that would meet with your approval
If someone is holding a gun to your head forcing you to evaluate internet critics blink twice so we know to send the cops
I disagree. It is at the very least socially irresponsible to provide cover for trolls without at a minimum some kind of disclaimer. Especially when all you are bringing to the table is fanboy nonsense.
And I didn't finally respond it until page 9.
No one here has argued this, or most of the other things being attributed to his critics.
You mean if he accused all other critics of being lying liars for having a different opinion?
Notice how no one in this thread has accused RLM of being lying liars for saying that the movie was unfunny and boring, because that's simply his opinion, and he's entitled to that.
Really? So what sort of backlash has RLM received so far for their review? Or Angry Joe? Or any of the negative reviewers on RT? "Oh no, some guy on a forum he doesn't read quoted a movie that he likes in order to refute a direct claim that he made!"
Have you ever considered that maybe there's a reason why James Rolfe is pretty the only much the only person you're able to single out as an example of a martyr? Like maybe that he decided to post his final judgement on the subject two months before the movie was even out. Why have the been no other martyrs in the time since the movie actually came out?
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Cause nobody had watched the movie yet?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Let's agree to disagree. I don't think that any disclaimer is necessary. You think its socially irresponsible to provide a cover to trolls. I think that trolls are always going to exist in all forms no matter what and being deterred from speaking your mind is a form of censorship.
I googled avgn and found a couple of articles with some collections of mean twitter posts.
But, you know, twitter
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I disagree, the two subjects are intrinsically linked. The movie should take priority, but why do you want to ignore the circumstances occurring around it? That's going on whether we discuss it in this thread or not.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Obviously Not
More seriously I'd say no. One of the best ones I've ever had was out of Copper Works in Seattle. They use a brewer's yeast, rather than a distillers/stripper yeast, and it had a slight sweetness to it. Not like flavored vodka sweetness, but just a little bit of something, and there was nothing added to it. It's just the various other non-ethanol byproducts of the distillation. I think they distill it up to like 196 proof before watering it back down, but that 2% makes a difference.
Because I sure am.
Really bummed to hear about what's going on with Leslie Jones. I kind of wish there was some sort of "Sorry the internet sucks, I really liked you in Ghostbusters! (also you seem like a cool person)" card I could sign.