Soooo.... James "AVGN" Rolfe is in the news this week..

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Except, if he didn't want to give an opinion, then he shouldn't have made a video giving his opinion. I mean, it's fine if he wants to tell people his opinion on the GB trailer and why he doesn't want to see the movie, but by doing so, he is giving his opinion and opening himself to criticism.

If the criticism was "Well, Mr Rolfe, I disagree with your views for reasons x and y but I respect your decision and your right to say it" then I don't think too many people would be taking umbrage with it. However, that isn't what we got.

What we got was "Oh look, another sexist misogynerd is boycotting a movie because they're a sexist misogynerd. Death to the misogynerd!" and ignoring the quite reasonable reasons given.

I haven't seen the new Ninja Turtles movie. I loved Ninja Turtles as a kid, I still have a lot of nostalgia for it. It's a special franchise for me, and I don't want to watch the new ("Michael Bay") versions because they look shit. I might be missing out, they might be good and OK that would be my loss, but it's my prerogative to not see a movie for whatever reason or reasons I want.

There's a difference between 1) stating that you don't want to see a movie, and 2) bashing a movie based solely on the trailers and predicting that everyone will hate and that it will bomb while also vowing never to see the finished product.

And I think the AVGN is well within his rights to make a video explaining why he isn't going to be reviewing the movie, since his audience would have expected him to do so considering his love for the franchise is well known. It's not at all unreasonable to say "Hey guys, I'm not gonna be reviewing this movie, and here's why."

He's obviously well within his rights. He can do whatever he wants. If he wants to say "Hey guys, I love the original too much to sit through a remake, I'm bowing out" then great. But he didn't just do that. His "non-review" is basically a review of the trailers. And I'm sorry, but if you're going to trash the trailers and then not be accountable as a critic when the finished product arrives, then that's weak sauce.

End of the day, this was a whole lot of fuss over absolutely nothing. I'm seeing a lot of that on the Internet recently...

I think this is actually pretty simple. Either you think it's okay for a critic to trash a movie based on the trailers and then not give the full movie a fair shake, or you don't. I don't.

And again, I'll repeat what I said earlier in this thread: what would the reaction from folks here be if a critic slammed the Doom trailers, say the game was going to be sh*t and then said they weren't going to review the final, finished product? How would people feel if someone in the games journalism press raked the WarCraft movie over the coals based on the trailers and then swore to never see the movie? Would people here be defending those moves? Somehow I think not...

EDITED for clarity

 

[mardocOz]

There's a difference between 1) stating that you don't want to see a movie, and 2) bashing a movie based solely on the trailers and predicting that everyone will hate and that it will bomb while also vowing never to see the finished product.

"I don't want to see this movie because the advertising trailers for it look shit, and not what I want from a Ghostbusters movie." - A perfectly reasonable statement.

He's obviously well within his rights. He can do whatever he wants. If he wants to say "Hey guys, I love the original too much to sit through a remake, I'm bowing out" then great. But he didn't just do that. His "non-review" is basically a review of the trailers. And I'm sorry, but if you're going to trash the trailers and then not be accountable as a critic when the finished product arrives, then that's weak sauce.

The trailers are a product in and of themselves, and it is absolutely reasonable to analyse and critique them. Sure, they "May not be representative of the final product" and that's fine, but if the trailers are shit, then what faith should we have in the movie itself?

I'll point out, as well, that he is known as the Angry Video Game Nerd. Not the Disgruntled Movie Reviewer Guy (I'm trademarking that name!). Your insistence on calling him a "critic" is somewhat misleading. It's like saying that I am a movie critic because I expressed an opinion about a movie I saw once. Which I suppose is a fair argument to make, I have criticised something, therefore I am a critic. Right? The only difference is that he has a bigger audience, the vast majority of whom are there for his video game content and not his opinion on movies.

I think this is actually pretty simple. Either you think it's okay for a critic to trash a movie based on the trailers and then not give the full movie a fair shake, or you don't. I don't.

Again, he's not a movie critic.

Even if he was, I think it's perfectly fine to call a spade a spade and say "Hey, this trailer for a Ghostbusters film that I have wanted for nigh on twenty years makes the movie look bad and not at all what I want from this release. I am disappointed and will not be watching it or reviewing it."

And again, I'll repeat what I said earlier in this thread: what would the reaction from folks here be if a critic slammed the Doom trailers, say the game was going to be sh*t and then said they weren't going to review the final, finished product? How would people feel if someone in the games journalism press raked the WarCraft movie over the coals based on the trailers and then swore to never see the movie? Would people here be defending those moves?

Absolutely. It's someones prerogative to make a judgement based on the advertising material that is made available. If someone decided to not watch the Warcraft movie based on the trailers, or the fact that Gul'Dan's teeth are yellower/not yellow enough in the trailers, then so be it. Good on them. I might not agree with it, but I'm not going to call them a sexist over it. I'm not going to wage a war of words over it. I might turn around and say "Well, I disagree with your reasoning" if I find it to not be sound, but I will not get so outraged as to start being abusive.

Just because somebody says something I don't agree with on the Internet, it doesn't make it OK for me to start abusing them. I can't believe that I have to explain that, but it seems that some people (not necessarily anyone on here) forget that from time to time, particularly when someone presents a dissenting opinion about something that they like/do not like.

If you (anyone) think it's unreasonable to have an opinion of a movie trailer that affects your decision over whether or not you'll watch the movie, fine. I think you're foolish, but fine.

If you (anyone) think it is unreasonable to share an opinion on said trailer, fine. Again, I think you're foolish, but fine.

If you (anyone) think it's OK to hurl abuse at someone who has shared an opinion on the Internet, or to defend those that have, then that's NOT fine. You don't have to agree with everything that's said by everyone all the time, and you are entitled to form and express your own opinion, but what we have in this example is a bunch of hysterical, outraged types who have decided to go on the Twitter offensive because someone posted something they disagreed with. And that is not OK. And defending or trying to justify these actions is equally not OK.

[Edit] I feel that I should add that if you think my opinions are foolish, hey that's OK too. The thing about having an opinion is that everyone has one, and they won't always align. If you disagree with me, cool. If you want to have a discussion about it, cool. If you want to abuse me or unleash the horde unto me solely because I disagree with you, then frankly the world would be better off without you.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Observing this issue I have noticed something. Both parties wish this movie not suck. The people complaining about it and the ones defending it both, they have that in common. They both wish it ends up being good, somehow.


Where they diverge, as I have noticed, is in that the critical group wishes it be good out of love for the series, while the group defending it sees to wish it be good just so that they can win this argument, for the sake not of ghostbusters but rather what it represents with regards to their politics and whatnot.

Now, I am not a fan of ghostbusters, nor do I have an issue with "loud big black woman slapping people" comedy, so what I have seen of this movie has left me apathetic, but I can empathize by imagining a series I care about being ruined in a remake, so I can't help but identiy more with the people complaining, as that stems from a place of love for the series. The ones defending it however, they don't sound like they are as much in love with it as the ones hating on it are with the original. As someone who loves FFXIII I know how one sounds when they defend a thing they love, a thing which it somehow is decided is cool to dump on, and that isn't it. It's much less soulful and more calculated than that, so it leaves me wanting. I never hear about what the ones defending it love about it, all I hear is them refuting the arguments made against it.

Not once have I seen a defender of the movie broach an aspect of it to showcase why it is good that wasn't already broached by someone else and used to show it sucks first.

 

[mardocOz]

Snip...

You raise an interesting point. At the end of the day, everyone wants to be able to say that the movie is good.

I feel that fans of the original Ghostbusters movies have every right to be disappointed, and to express their disappointment, as this remake has taken the series in a completely different direction and is attempting to appeal to a different (broader?) audience. Judging by the trailers (which is all we can go by at the moment) it looks like they've taken a swing and missed as far as the fans are concerned.

That being said the defenders do exist, and they are equally vociferous. I, like you, am yet to see a compelling argument as to why this movie doesn't look like total garbage, but maybe there is something in there that appeals to people. I mean, I don't know because nothing I've seen in the trailers is interesting to me.

I can't help but wonder if this whole situation has become so political that the movie itself is somehow now irrelevant and it's "what the movie stands for" which is why people are getting so worked up about it. If that's the case, then the question becomes "What exactly does the movie stand for?" and I'll bet you the answer for that changes from person to person. The more I think about it, the more similarities I seem to be able to draw between this incident and another equally frivolous Internet argument. Gamer...something?

Whatever. Time to abandon ship for drawing that comparison.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Snip...

You raise an interesting point. At the end of the day, everyone wants to be able to say that the movie is good.

I feel that fans of the original Ghostbusters movies have every right to be disappointed, and to express their disappointment, as this remake has taken the series in a completely different direction and is attempting to appeal to a different (broader?) audience. Judging by the trailers (which is all we can go by at the moment) it looks like they've taken a swing and missed as far as the fans are concerned.

That being said the defenders do exist, and they are equally vociferous. I, like you, am yet to see a compelling argument as to why this movie doesn't look like total garbage, but maybe there is something in there that appeals to people. I mean, I don't know because nothing I've seen in the trailers is interesting to me.

I can't help but wonder if this whole situation has become so political that the movie itself is somehow now irrelevant and it's "what the movie stands for" which is why people are getting so worked up about it. If that's the case, then the question becomes "What exactly does the movie stand for?" and I'll bet you the answer for that changes from person to person. The more I think about it, the more similarities I seem to be able to draw between this incident and another equally frivolous Internet argument. Gamer...something?

Whatever. Time to abandon ship for drawing that comparison.

Right, this is now about what the movie stands for, but it didn't have to be, and I think I would put the onus for making it that on the ones who blame people like the nerd for disliking this movie. Sure, some may have hated on it cause it was a female cast, but it wasn't ones like him. I still think most of the haters actually care about the movie, while all I hear of the defenders is their defense of what the movie stands for and nothing about art or filmmaking or any of the actual important bits. It is eerily similar to how some games get reviewed based on how well they support the feminist or sjw agenda, whatever those are, and how good they are as games is secondary. Games like Bayonetta 2 or Dragons Crown got a few such reviews by some publications.

When this is the approach taken, I can't help but form antipthy for those who use either games or movies as a simple means to an end.