Dizchu said:
Exley97 said:
No, he didn't. He's a smart guy and a seasoned critic. He knew this would probably generate controversy and piss some folks off and probably get a ton of views (nearly 900,000). If he wanted to avoid controversy, he could have just not seen the movie and, if people asked, said "I don't want to see this movie, so there won't be a review." But instead, he made a big show of his "non-review" -- "Instead of doing what everybody else is gonna do -- go see the movie and then talk about how bad it is -- I'm gonna do something different. Something unheard of!"*
*Which is funny, because he's talking for six-plus minutes about how bad the movie is HAVING NOT SEEN IT.
He wanted to explain why he wouldn't be seeing it, and the current obsession with remakes and reboots that he finds exhausting. If he just responded to people asking for the curious absence of any "Ghostbusters 2016 review" it'd be ambiguous, and ironically it would encourage even more of this "reading between the lines" bullshit that happened despite his efforts.
That's fine, explain how important THE ORIGINAL is to you and why you don't want to see ANY remake of it. When you say stuff like this:
"judging from the trailers, it looks awful"
"Instead of doing what everybody else is gonna do -- go see the movie and then talk about how bad it is..."
"the Ghostbusters movie nobody wanted..."
"It's not the fact that it looks bad..."
"The jokes in the trailer make your cringe"
"[the effects] looks embarrassing when you compare it to the original"
"It looks bad"
...then you're wading into judging the movie without seeing it. Which is fine, we all judge trailers. But don't judge the trailers and then turn around and declare that you won't see the movie and give it a fair shake.
Dizchu said:
He didn't talk for six minutes about how bad the movie is, because he doesn't know that the film is bad. He even admits that he doesn't know if the film will be bad.
He literally said "If you already know you're going to hate it, why give them your money?" So it sounds like he made up his mind.
Dizchu said:
He just doesn't want to get involved, he doesn't want to be a part of the whole controversy because no matter which side you pick, you're gonna get shit on.
He didn't want to get involved? HE MADE A 6-PLUS MINUTE VIDEO ABOUT IT. No one forced him to do it.
Dizchu said:
So what did he do? He tried to be diplomatic, he only mentioned the whole "female Ghostbusters" gimmick once and that was out of necessity. And look at the response he got for doing that, "he's only avoiding talking about it so he can avoid looking sexist!" Seriously?
"Gimmick"? I'm pretty sure Rolfe didn't say that, and that "gimmick" is your word.
Dizchu said:
I honestly can't stand all of these bullshit assumptions about people, that they're horrible misogynists for not wanting to get involved. If the Wayans did a remake of or sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey and I refused to see it, would that make me a racist?
I don't know who you're arguing with by presenting this hypothetical situation, but it's not me. I stated pretty clearly I don't think Rolfe's video or his decision is sexist or mysoginistic. My beef with Rolfe is this: you can decide not to see a movie (and announce that decision) or you can bash a movie but that doing both is a bad look for a professional critic.