Just Who Are The Angry Nerds Here?

We're now about six weeks away from the moment of truth. Ghostbusters 2016  – which I've written about before (see my writeup on the trailer) – will be coming out in the middle of July. People will go and see it. Reviews will be written. Viewer ratings will be assessed. Box Office numbers will be crunched. Personally, I'm not going to see it because I didn't see its spiritual predecessor Adam Sandler's Pixels either, and I'm not sure if I can follow the story without having seen the first movie.

I'm kidding. I know they're in no way related, save for the level of one's brow when it comes to humour. That said, you really couldn't be blamed for thinking they were, and that is where the bulk of the criticism is coming from, regardless of what the production company or their unwitting allies in the press would have you believe. Sony and Paul Feig have been playing a very risky game with the marketing of the film, banking heavily on outrage culture and progressive buzzwords in an attempt to sell it to an audience that would probably go see it solely on the gender of the characters, and even going so far as to delete negative criticism that wasn't based on sexism from the trailer's YouTube comments section.

I'm not the only person not going to see it, either. Recently, James Rolfe (aka The Angry Video Game Nerd) released a video, approximately six minutes long, explaining to over 2 million viewers why he wasn't going to see it even though he's a big fan of the original films (or at least the first one). He calmly, reasonably lays out his reasons for it, briefly dismissing the fact that women are playing the starring roles, and explains that he's just not interested, doesn't think it'll be good based on the trailers he's seen, and won't be providing coverage of it for his channels. See below for the statement in his own words.

That was a pretty reasonable statement, right? I thought so. Apparently I'm in the minority on that, as what happened next was a coordinated strike the likes of which hadn't been seen since GamerGate or the Sad/Rabid Puppies coverage. No fewer than 20 outlets dropped hitpieces on Rolfe:

1. The DailyBeast
2. IndieWire
3. The Atlantic
4. Birthmoviesdeath
5. Pedestrian
6. Wired 
7. Salon
8. TheSuperficial
9. BroBible
10. DeathAndTaxes 
11. Fastcocreate
12. TheStranger
13. Fansided
14. PopCrush
15. FiveThirtyEight
16. News.com.au
17. Gothamist
18. NZ Herald
19. Filmink
20. SomeEntertainment

All of this because a moderately e-famous comedy critic said he wasn't interested in seeing the movie. (Credit to the archivists at KotakuInAction for compiling that list; it was taking me forever to hunt them all down). And every single one of them furthers the narrative marketing that Sony and Paul Feig have been pushing hard since that first trailer came... no, even before the trailer, since the very first announcement.

Having actually seen the video, the only way I can wrap my head around this is to imagine that these 'journalists' saw the title of Rolfe's video and judged the content of it without watching it. And with that, the needle on my irony meter has hit the red so hard that it came loose and lodged itself in the wall, barely missing my beloved Play Arts Kai Harley Quinn figure. 

I mean, isn't this what you're criticizing Rolfe himself for? For judging a movie not worth the $11 it would cost for a regular screening (not even 3D or IMAX) without having first seen it? It wouldn't have even cost you anything to watch his video and judge his reasons yourself before calling him a dickless man-baby, only a mere six minutes or so of your life. Is the world of 'journalism' so fast-paced that you can't spare six minutes that you'd have otherwise spent just making stuff up?

I can't help but think to something Anita Sarkeesian once said, and how she was right without even knowing it. It's not that sex sells; instead, sexism sells. Sexism is what gets you clicks and page-views and ad revenue, not actually reviewing your sources and telling the truth, and the bigger target you can paint the better. Queue Notch, aka Markus Perrson, the creator of Minecraft.

Perrson recently responded to a tweet about 'mansplaining' wherein he called it 'a sexist term designed to silence men via gender shaming.' He cleverly followed up with 'cuntfused' and sent the gaming journalism world into a tizzy, with hitpieces from Destructoid and Vice hot on the wheels of the AVGN incident, with headlines like “Minecraft billionaire feels oppressed by women.” The poor bastard even got the dreaded label of "MRA" for speaking his mind.

Dare to disagree, people. Dare to disagree. 

Something Strange, And It Don't Look Good

Cards on the table time: When I first heard "Ghostbusters reboot" I cringed. Very hard.

The original movie (and even its sequel) are fond childhood memories: I remember the first movie playing on television when I was very, very small, and hiding my face behind my Ultra Magnus figure. Given the results of reboots of various other 80s-90s properties such as Transformers, Ninja Turtles, and the like, its chances were not good. Transformers is remembered more for Megan Fox, amateur gynecological exams with cinema cameras, humping dogs, and making me hate Shia Lebouf. Ninja Turtles is remembered for those nightmarish faces, a Shredder wearing a cutlery set, and more Megan Fox. Given that history, Ghostbusters couldn't possibly be good.

I cringed again when I heard "all female cast." Not because (it should go without saying) I didn't think an all female cast was capable of carrying a film, but because I can smell stunt-casting a mile away. Then they announced who was in it and I stopped listening at Melissa McCarthy. I have nothing against her personally, and again (it should go without saying) I don't hold her gender against her. Her style of comedy just seems nigh-identical to that of Kevin James (lol fat jokes) and I can't stand him, either. In fact, I'd go on record right now saying that I'd be looking forward to this Ghostbusters "reboot" just as much as I am now were Will Ferrell, Jack Black, Kevin James, and Adam Sandler doing it. In fact, I'd probably hate the idea more, to the point where I'd have been disappointed if there wasn't a tragic on-set accident that involved the Ecto-whatever-number-they're-using running them all over.

Now I've seen the trailer. This trailer:



And I don't hate it. There are some things that annoy me, and some that I actually liked. But overall, it's an overwhelming sense of... nothing. I feel nothing for this. Not even a feeling of nostalgia.

I do like Kate McKinnon's character of Holtzmann, who seems to be the analogue of Egon Spengler of the original cast. She's got an interesting visual style, and seems to deliver her lines in a way that is far less grating than at least half the cast, and looks completely at home with the tinted safety glasses and insane gadgets in her lab. I do like the design of the ghosts, with a heavy emphasis on 1920s flapper style and vintage carnival design, and I'm interested in how well they hold up on-screen compared to the dated special effects the original movies used. There's been about 30ish years of on-screen movie ghosts between then and now, and I'd like to see what direction they take monster design in this one. I don't hate the Cadillac as much as I thought I would, but it's certainly no vintage Ecto-1.

The movie's already catching heat, though, from the same crowd that previously defended it by accusing its detractors of misogyny. Patty, the only black character, isn't a scientist. She's a regular schlub, a city transit worker who is only there because she has street smarts and, from what the trailer tells us,  a car. Which, predictably, is garnering the movie accusations of racism.

When the original film did it, it fit with the times: it was much more common to see a black man as a construction worker instead of a scientist in the 80s, and I loved Ernie Hudson's take on Winston as a regular dude who didn't even believe in the supernatural but was there for the paycheck. His character's evolution was probably my favourite part of the series. But now, while I debate the accusation of racism, it is incredibly lazy just to rehash Winston as a woman.

I'm not looking forward to Melissa McCarthy's character, primarily for reasons I've outlined above. And I don't have an opinion either way on Kristen Wiig's character, despite her being the most accomplished comedic actress out of the entire group (which doesn't bode well. She should be the Bill Murray of the group, but I'm getting nothing out of her at this point).

I'm not loving Chris Hemsworth's part in this, either; he's Captain Kirk's dad and Thor, and he's playing what seems to be a joke role at this point. Compare that to Janine, who was a very layered character who contrasted a sharp, grating vocal style with an 80s 'sexy librarian' look, while Hemsworth seems to be... just a sexy fireman? Janine was a subversion of femininity, whereas Hemsworth just seems to be a pin-up.

So in short: I don't hate it. I don't love it. I'm not feeling much either way, aside from this sick feeling of dread in the pit of my stomach that a franchise as beloved by so many people as Ghostbusters has just put out a trailer that looks like the sequel to Pixels.

In the meantime, if you're looking for a true sequel, head on over to Steam and check out the Ghostbusters video game.