Hes not boycoting the film. Hes just saying hes not gonna watch it, How is that harmful to anyone?

Youre the only one being sexist here, calling a guy mysoginist just because he expressed himself. Shame on you...

Wow, reading this with the wisdom of retrospective, the author looks like a real piece of shit.

Not only is he a complete asshole, he also exposed himself as being a complete fraud. Why? Because it's pretty clear that he didn't even watch the video he is criticizing. He read some other moron's 4 word summary "white male is sexist" and just basically copy/pasted it. What a complete and utter piece of shit.

Oh the irony of this in 2018 LOL!

All I see here is someone who enjoys sniffing their own farts. Too smart for their own good.

So Devin, it's wrong for James to not see a movie, but it's OK for you to sexually assault women? kys

I guess the biggest reason people are mad about this is because they shat all over a great movie franchise (?) just to put out a girls version. It's disrespectful to women (they can't have an ORIGINAL story? they have to take men's leftovers?) It's disrespectful to the original actors and writers because they didn't even try for originality...let's just do the same story with GIRLS!! Yeah! and it's disrespectful to fans because they pushed out a bullshit plot with lame jokes and promoted it with gender. I'm not gonna respect some woman who's claim to fame is doing what some guys already did. They could have called it "Ghostbusters: Penis Envy." Do something new and original to showcase how awesome women are instead of just copying dudes.

I'd say your more angry about it than he ever was. He has strong opinions on things from the 80s, and this isn't the first time he has brought up Ghostbusters...by far, in fact I believe that video was to adress a previous comment he had made about not wanting to see it. Ie to explain his posistion to people like you who insist a married man with a daughter is a sexist because he doesn't want a sequel to Ghostbusters 2, for the sake of milking the remake train. Which is what it is; female cast or not. Why don't you take some crash courses on journalism, relearn how to do research, and cover some basics on professionalism/being unbiased. Oh, do me a favour and thank James for me, never have come to this POS wordpress blog otherwise. Your welcome for the click revenue, now please ban me.

I thought you were making a metaphor about him having a "limp dick", I didn't know you probably grabbed it, then made your friends sniff your fingers after. :D

Soft sexism is bad.
But the forcing your hand down a womans pants against her will? Devin is fine with that, as he's the one that goes out doing it.
He does it so much he says he can't remember specific examples but is sure they happened.
I guess Devin just doesn't like people doing things by half measures. If you are going to go sexist, Devin wants full on sexism.....
Or maybe hes a hypocritical piece of shit that is a danger to women and uses this social justice/feminism crpa he spews as a cover to attack women.
One of those two, anyway.

goddamn

So, there are LOADS of documented cases of men/TGs using the womens bathrooms for sexual harrassment purposes:
http://www.nbcwashington.co...
http://www.king5.com/news/l...
http://www.torontosun.com/2...

I agree 100% with what you say re Ghostbusters, but this is nothing like the bathroom problem we're facing.

You dont have to be insane to see this movie is a cynical cash grab, but it helps!

Seriously though, the guy was just giving his honest opinion, i didn't read any sexism into it at all, but i am fairly sane. I think the subsequent reaction to his media piece tells all you all you need to know about the film and the normal lazy arguments against anybody who says it looks bad. Its far easier to tar a man with a brush than it is to actually present evidence, good luck to you though.

What sort of tomfoolery is this? Look at the ratings of the movie. I see movies based on the ratings. Bye! All these feminists are nothing but professional victims and anti-man, just like the antiracists, who are in reality anti-White.

Says anyone who criticizes the film is a soft sexist and then precedes to criticize the film a month or two before the general release. Oops guess that makes you a soft sexist also. Fucking idiot.

Hey Devin !
Kill yourself.

No attachment to ghostbusters and I don't care about protecting it from the "feminist agenda" or whatever it is people think all straight nerdish dudes want but I still think the movie is gonna suck and I see no problem with avgn not seeing the thing if someone remade my favorite thing from childhood and I thought it'd suck I wouldn't go women or no women

Do you want to know why no men screamed about the new reboots of the aforementioned movies.....BECAUSE THE MOVIES STILL STARRED THE ORIGINAL CHARACTERS SPIDERMAN STILL ABOUT SPIDERMAN, BATMAN STILL ABOUT BATMAN, MAD MAX STILL ABOUT MAD MAX (although i personally hated this movie as the entire movie was one long car chase). WHO ARE THE GHOSTBUSTERS? VENKMAN, EGON, RAY, AND WINSTON....AND FROM WHAT WE KNOW THESE CHARACTERS ARE NOT IN THE MOVIE AT ALL JUST THE ACTORS AS OTHER PEOPLE. THE OLD CREW COULD HAVE TAUGHT THE NEW FEMALE CREW THEREBY PASSING THE TORCH AS AVGN STATED. MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUMP OFF THE SEXISM BANDWAGON THAT YOU PROBABLY BELIEVE WILL GET YOU LAID AND ACTUALLY LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAID.

Shallow pate. I saw the trailer. I don't want to see it either. You are not warranted in the accusations you're making against Mr. Rolfe - these are just bad assumptions, and bad prejudices on your part. Maybe you are acutely aware of hidden sexist anger as you yourself experience it, but you have no reason to attribute it to Mr. Rolfe. If this were a group of white cis MEN, with the same jokes, the same set up, the same lack of connection to the earlier movie, it would still suck, a LOT. Maybe more. And honestly, I think it looks too much like a gimmick in general, and having all female (actually, white cisgender female) leads does not help (oh and I see there is a black woman in the trailer who gets the part of, what, the street-savvy city dweller who can't do science?). I wish this movie would have been something worth while, instead of a shitty profiteering based on surface level bullshit "feminism" that so many people (like you) unreflectively chow down on, while priding yourselves for *appreciating* this as if you had any idea what you were talking about. Acting like you are supportive of this movie does not make you open minded. Of course, I thought at first, "well, they had an all male casted movie before, what's wrong with all female now?"Then I realized, the answer to this is: Because we don't need a complete inversion of values to make a movie progressive, diverse, and feministic. We can have a cast of mixed persons, instead of a bunch of white cisgender females. It's bullshit, and it's really a crummy movie all over the face of it for MANY reasons as Mr. Rolfe points out in his video, which you might have been able to grasp if you weren't so wrapped up in your own fantasy. The fact that people like you are jumping out of their seats to accuse this movie reviewer of being sexist (and saying mean ass things to him, when he actually seems like a perfectly nice person) without even considering how sexist the movie itself still is in its own right, is just disgusting.

Oh, there was plenty of sexist outrage over the Mad Max reboot, as I recall. Also – 'working class fantasy'? Three out of the four original Ghostbusters protagonists were college professors – unemployed college professors, yes, but not exactly Ralph Kramdens.

Hating the trailer has NOTHING to do with sexism and EVERYTHING to do with how SHIT the trailer was. I gave it a chance, hoping I'd enjoy it and at the very least have a chuckle at a funny bit that is usually in comedy trailers. Nope, didn't happen. I did not even crack a smile, in fact, as the trailer went on, I found myself getting angrier and angrier because it was shit, and continued getting shitter as the trailer went on!! Ghostbusters was one of my earliest favorite movies! I loved it at the age of 3, and grew up with the cartoons! It wasn't because they are women, no matter how you brain-dead Feminazis claim it is. The trailer looked like a trailer for a live action Scooby-Doo movie, for fuck's sake!! NEWS FLASH, you misandrist cunt. There are rumors that some one heard Kristen Wiig talking on her cell phone between shoots and she allegedly said the movie was a train-wreck. OH MY FUCKING GOD!! Kristen Wiig might be a misogynist!!! Stupid "feminist" cunt.

P.S. Screaming your lines does not make it funny. Just sayin'.

why insult the final frontier...
Well this article is basically insulting people.
No class in every sentence.

Misleading. James didn't mention anything about who the new characters would
be. And Extreme Ghostbusters already exists with handicapped, multiethnic characters, and a woman.

And this was a long time ago. Anyone familiar with the ghostbusters knows about it. It's my favourite ghostbuster series(i like it better than the classic cartoon).

Using a different, unconnected argument is a bad idea. Misleading, and there's no way it's related. The small overlap of constant racist would exist anyway. Most people who don't care about the turtles wouldn't know about it. Nor did James have some sort of anger going on. This guy is merely using James Rolfe, and that's rather sick.

This has nothing to do with bathrooms. While the ghostbusters could be considered a franchise because of the spin offs. The movies themselves were someone's idea, that he worked with other people. Someone very connected to it. In otherwords, there's an author. Maybe the author flubbed on the sequel(and that is debatable, it isn't just because you say so). But it was his right to do so.

Making a movie he's not a part of or writing, truly makes it just another industrial film.

ANd there's no reason to judge this based on reaction.

I was surprised it's so sacrosanct. But that doesn't change peoples right
to be disinterested in a movie.

I personally don't care about this movie. It's one of a number of movies I would skip.

But the backlash is coming because people are being attacked for their disinterest.

It's a battle of opinions. And for whatever reason, you can't say these peoples disinterest is wrong.

and let's be clear, if it doesn't appeal to him, James Rolfe, or anyone has no reason to be interested.

And let's be clear on another thing. Most people that aren't interested are not making this a political issue. So that crusader mentality is a worthless idea, and an insulting way to demean people.

It is in fact articles like these that are trying. Whatever set off the powderkeg is unknown. Perhaps this means something to people beyond our comprehension. But I'm willing to believe James Rolfe cares enough about it to not be interested in what the sequel shows. And he did not say it couldn't belong to anyone or any such arguement. Nor did star trek, or Star wars somehow limit the audience by acknowledging the old movies and perhaps showed some good will from the audience. Or brought out a few fans. That's speculation and it doesn't matter anyway.

I remember when Sony used Harold Ramis passing to promote this film. Good times.

DEVIN FARACI, this is the most intelligent and articulated explanation that I´ve heard on this topic. I am glad that people like you exist.

Oh, good. Apparently, anyone who thinks the new Ghostbusters is going to suck based on the trailers is really just a woman-hating manchild. Oh, sorry, a SUBCONSCIOUSLY woman-hating manchild! They just don't know they're doing it!

What a load of tripe hatemongering.

James Rolfe presented the most calm video I have seen about not wanting to see the Ghostbusters remake, citing legitimate reasons why he will not see the movie. He only mentioned the gender of the protagonists once in the whole video, when talking about the name of the movie. He just said it's silly to call the movie "The Female Ghostbusters."

In addition, the reason he made the video was to make a response to the questions his fans were asking about whether he'd see the movie or not. He's just a fan of the franchise that decided to announce to his own viewers that he won't see a particular movie.

And I'm sorry, but in what kind of warped reality were the Ghostbusters someone to look up to? Kids wanted to be Ghostbusters, yes, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would look up to Bill Murray's womaniser, Dan Aykroyd's manchild, Harold Ramis' obsessive-compulsive introvert, or even Ernie Hudson's street-smart in-it-for-the-money regular guy. That was the joke with these characters. They were extremely flawed, unlikely heroes with a dream, plus a normal guy they hired 'cause they needed the help (or in terms of the comedy quartet, the sane voice to offset the crazy). The reason kids wanted to be Ghostbusters was because they'd get to fight awesome ghosts with awesome toys!

That's another thing about this movie. A lot of the scenes are retreading the original movie with nonsensical changes that just make them worse. The librarian ghost, for example, adds a dumb gross-out joke that only leads to an unfunny line about slime getting everywhere. The trailer tries to pass off ghosts possessing humans as something new when it's already been done by the original movie. (Zuul and Vinz Clortho were admittedly demigods serving Gozer, but they still counted as ghosts given how Gozer was defeated.) The giant ghost at the end is just a repeat of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man from the original, just replacing him with the Ghostbusters logo ghost for that extra touch of unoriginality. This is the kind of thing that audiences are tired of: the same stuff we've seen before, just done worse. It's the same reason the Robocop remake sucked, and the same reason the Total Recall remake sucked.

We just want Hollywood to stop pretending that thirty-year-old movies don't exist while using their names to push out inferior cash-grab remakes. If you're going to remake a movie, do it well. Improve on the original, at least. Look to Evil Dead and Carrie as examples of how to do a remake well.

As for me, I'll skip watching the remake and instead replay the 2009 video game.

Wow, you put a lot of words into AVGN's mouth. I think you watched the wrong video, and/or were desperate to write something interesting. Too bad this article amounts to nothing more than a straw-man argument.

A) As a 'cis' woman, I do not give two hoots about the sex or gender of others in any bathroom; all I care about is the cleanliness. Anyone COULD enter a bathroom and harass someone; allowing the transgendered to use the restroom in which they feel comfortable doesn't make that any more acceptable or likely to happen. It certainly is not asking too much.

B) The AVGN is not remotely sexist. He does movie reviews. He loves Ghostbusters. He's explaining to his subscribers why they won't be getting a review from him on this new 'Ghostbusters' film, despite its title. He does a good job of explaining, and the fact that the new movie stars females is immaterial to his criticisms. He's angrier over this than the average bad movie/sequel/remake/reboot because he's such a big fan of the original GB, and because of how far this looks from what the vast majority of fans believe a new GB film ought to be--if one needs to be made at all. The "level of outrage" has NOTHING to do with misogyny. It originated as criticism of what people think is a disgrace to a classic, elevated only because their legitimate points were immediately brushed off as deriving from sexism.
I understand completely the feeling of being let down by something you should've been able to look forward to with excited, joyful anticipation.

The AVGN's ultra-relatable and hilarious rage is absent from the Ghostbusters video because that's not James' AVGN character--it's just himself, explaining his viewpoint. And as a girl, I share it. This new film doesn't look as if it was made "for" anyone or any reason aside from cash. Everything I've seen, read, and heard about it sounds forgettable, ridiculous, pointless--barely mediocre at best. I didn't need to actually see female Ghostbusters as a kid to know that women could bust ghosts just as well as men but that the group just happened to consist of males. I didn't look at everything as some kind of competition or statement or deliberate omission. Things are what they are, and I was never insecure enough to make such a big bloody deal out of this nonsense. And I don't think this movie is a real "gift" to anybody just because they happen to be female.

The actual "sexism" comes from leftists who feel they need to make everything female that was once male, and then cry that those of us who recognize that obvious sexism, as if we are the sexists. Tisk Tisk. There is nothing wrong with female stars, but calling clear liberal political correctness for what it is, a mockery of actual art and basic decency is where the true right of things is. Next Mad Max and Ghostbusters will be gay and then next transgendered, all in the name of so-called art. THAT is where the anger comes from. Art is to be what it is, not making it and everyone the SAME.... THAT is the true "sexism".

THAT is the true "sexism".

lol

Wow... This was a pretty flawed article, and I did not see that coming. I watched the video by Angry Video Game Nerd, and he doesn't seem sexist in the slightest... I'm not saying there's no sexism with the hate going on around the new Ghostbusters (in fact, I didn't know this 3rd movie was coming out until I read this article and watched the "no review" video), but Angry Video Game Nerd himself isn't sexist...

Or at the very least you can't really call him sexist, or unconsciously sexist. He's against the film because of how many times Ghostbusters 3 had been rejected, how little the new one has anything to do with the original, and how confusing it is by calling it the same name as the original. The second was terrible and made him never want to see another Ghostbuster anyways. The only reason he brought up calling it the "female Ghostbusters" is because he was pointing out how ridiculous the new name is.

I couldn't care less about the movie itself, but the specific example used for this article (example being Angry Video Game Nerd) sucks.

By disagreeing with this article, does that make me unconsciously sexist? That would be just about as stupid as the article calling this guy sexist for expressing his opinion that had nothing to do with sex.

Did you watch the whole video? James wasn't calling for a boycott. Tons of people had been asking him to review the movie when it comes out, and he's making it clear that he has no interest in doing so.

I do have to wonder though, if the previews were the same in every way except for the cast, if it would be hated aa much. Possibly, but your point about Seth Rogen is not entirely ridiculous.

So I'm a trans woman and a feminist and I got to be honest, your article is what's wrong with a lot of feminists. To be more specific, you are not a feminist, rather one of those silly people who just want clicks and are willing to use forced controversy (or as you call it, sexism) as a way of doing so.
There are people who won't go to see this movie because the leads are women. That is true. But what's also true is that, in the video James posted, he does not mention once that that is his thinking. In fact, he makes sound points and simply states he does not want to see a movie he knows he won't enjoy. While to you that is something terrible, I personally prefer not to spend my money on movies that don't look like they will appeal to me, including Ghostbusters (guess I'm not a feminist).
The problem is, when you guys bring up people who aren't being sexist and portray them as being sexist, that makes people less into the cause. By your logic if I didn't enjoy Kill Bill I'm like Donald Trump. It sucks that the feminist movement is pushing away people who genuinely believe in equal rights, and not just enjoying something because "women are the stars" or voting for someone "because they are a woman."
Basically, your article does not represent feminists who care about rights.

Basically, your comment doesn't represent people who can read.

Or it might represent *only* people who can read?

Nope.

lol

Hollywood still makes movies?

Amazing, I know.

Devin it is unfortunate that this is the first article I have ever read of yours, because this post is the most absolute garbage I have read in long time. Your infantile reduction of anyone not for the new GB movie sounds like so many online trolls comparing things to Hitler.
You brought zero interesting points to the discussion and your comparison of the trans struggle to someone not liking a movie is disgusting. At least you brought in as many clicks to your site as you did, because your article is pointless and lacks any credible merit whatsoever.

It sounds more like you're describing your own comment. Meta.

My question is why do people feel the need to keep infantilizing women, treating them like defenseless children who need defending at any cost and who constantly need encouragement for the smallest or most mundane of achievements? How insulting is that?

"Because it's all women" is NOT a sufficient reason to support this film. I had a similar position about the film "Red Tails" (or just about any Tyler Perry project), because apparently it was my duty as a Black person to reward that garbage with my money, because the leads were all Black. Nonsense. Support good work, don't support shit. "Ghostbusters 2016" looks like shit.

Is there sexism involved in some of the backlash to this film? Sure. But that doesn't explain people's complaints about the CGI; doesn't explain their complaints about the lackluster comedy; doesn't explain their complaints about the tone of the film, as put forth by the trailer; it doesn't explain people's dissatisfaction with dismissal of the events and characters of the previous film (the cameos by the original cast add insult to injury); it doesn't explain people's cynicism with reboots; it doesn't explain the growing backlash to political correctness.

All of the above are subjective criticisms, sure--but the above items constitute the bulk of the backlash against this film, and NONE of it has to do with the cast being women. Unfortunately, because we think so little of women, we are bullied into supporting the film anyway, because somehow it has become "empowering" to them for us to support even their subpar work.

Here's the million-dollar question (and I agree with the majority of your post BTW): if this had been a crappy-CGI, lackluster-comedy, tone-deaf, canon-blasting POS, but it starred Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Ernie Hudson, and some Harold Ramis stand-in, would it be getting this level of vitriol?

The answer is no, and we know this with near certainty because of TERMINATOR: GENISYS. Instead of getting mad, everybody just shrugged and kept on not caring.

This video editorial actually does a great job in talking about the backlash:

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

In the comment "So we’re already dealing with a 'franchise' (which isn’t a great word for a movie and a sequel, but here we are) ", I think you're missing a ton of media you didn't know about. First starters, if you go to wiki, the page is titles Ghostbusters (franchise). Besides the two movies, two cartoons (Not counting the unrelated one of the same name) , there's at least 11 different videogames for it, a slot machine, a pinball machine, comics and novels.

Ah. Just like Terminator: Genisys destroyed a beloved horror film, or the inexplicably-beloved Jurassic World destroyed the best dinosaur movie of all time. We live in a reboot/remake culture. Your favorites have been getting "destroyed" for years. Why does Ghostbusters—a series that has only had one terrible sequel and has been amazingly exploited for cash in the past—get all the vitriol?

(Hint: it's sexism.)

((Double hint: it's not just sexism, but that seems to be the difference.))

(((Triple hint: disliking the idea of the movie doesn't make you sexist. You didn't say that but just a reminder in case your next argument was gonna go there.)))

((((Quadruple hint: the CGI really isn't that bad. Although I'm no great judge, most of the people here who are willing to give it a chance seem to uniformly think it looks pretty good.))))

The author of this article is clearly an idiot. Yeah. It's sexism. Yup. Everyone who hates this new ghostbusters movie hates women.

Oh wait...what about my wife? She IS a woman! She's a woman and thinks this movie is a terrible idea. Is my wife who is a woman also anti-woman? Gee, that's weird!

And what about my friend Tara? She's part of a Ghostbusters cosplay/charity group that dresses as Ghostbusters and collects money for charity. She eats, sleeps and breathes Ghostbusters. She customized her car with Ghostbusters logos all over it. She's also a woman. GASP! How is it possible that she hates this new movie too? Is it self loathing?

And then there's me. The father of two young girls always actively seeking positive female role models for my girls. I was ecstatic that Rey was the main character in Episode VII and bought my eight year old all the Rey t-shirts and toys I could find. I threw a fit that the two female characters on Star Wars Rebels (Hera and Sabine) didn't have action figures in the first wave of Rebels toys because I wanted to buy them for her. And yet I hate this new Ghostbusters movie. Isn't weird how I hate women? I must really loathe my two daughters! Damn, women suck!

Oh, and Ghostbusters II is an excellent movie. It wasn't as good as Part I, but it was damned close.

And Star Trek 5 was underrated. Even if it did suck (it didn't), it had one major thing going in its favor that the new Ghostbusters doesn't.... It's *IN CONTINUITY*. THAT is the ultimate sin of Ghostbusters '16. It pretends that the first two classic films didn't happen. And THAT is unacceptable.

I'm sorry I called you an idiot. That was rude and uncalled for. But you claiming that James Rolfe and the others who hate this crap-movie are all demonstrating 'soft sexism' was uncalled for too. This movie needs to stop wearing misogyny as a bullet proof vest to protect it from all criticism.

Maybe try reading the piece before commenting.

Read it all! From start to finish. And what i wrote is 100% on the money!

What you wrote is 100% the ravings of an obsessive maniac who didn't read the part where the author explicitly says that simply hating the idea of the movie doesn't make you sexist, and that he actually does as well.