They are still mad as fuck at James. Some choice quotes
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/fashion/ghostbusters-internet-attacks.html?_r=0
>“I refuse to watch it,” he said, sitting with his rimless glasses amid a gumball machine, “Star Trek” memorabilia and bookcases stacked with old VHS tapes.
>Next, I sent him an email. I wanted to know what he made of the furor. His response was astonishing. He was offended by some of the blowback — because, as he wrote in an email, it seemed to him that those angry over his video “have not watched it, or have been misquoting me or twisting my words.”
>Mr. Judging Before Seeing was mad because people were judging before seeing.
>When finally coaxed to the phone, Mr. Rolfe, who works from his East Coast home, did not want to talk about his “Ghostbusters” video, saying he thought it spoke for itself, and he didn’t want to address the fallout. “When people attack me, it’s always about trying to get a reaction,” he said.
>>70869662
HOW FUCKING DARE YOU SAY YOU DON'T WANT TO WATCH A MOVIE WITH STRONG FEMALE LEADS!
FUCKING CIS TRASH. YOU OWE IT TO ALL WOMEN FOR THE SUFFERING THEY'VE EXPERIENCED FOR DECADES TO GIVE THIS WHITE DIRECTOR AND MULTI NATIONAL COMPANY YOUR CASH!
>/fashion/
is that where the throw the shitty articles?
>>70869949
NY Times in general has been shitty for years
>Without so much as pressing play, I decided that his position was garbage and that he represented the worst about geek culture and the internet.
>image board obsessed with making reactionary comments and judgments
>jizzes over a guy who doesn't want to watch something based on context-less scenes in a trailer edited by some idiot in a studio office
No way.
>>70869662
>>(Hard stare towards Reddit)
>support a new movie by attacking the original fanbase
What do they hope to gain from this? It's completely retarded.
>It’s not overtly sexist — though there are whiffs
No there aren't, what the fuck? He only mentioned the fact that it stars women once, and that was to say that the gender doesn't matter.
>>70869662
The whole AVGNGate in a nutshell
>>70870199
Ever since Ellen Pao, reddit has become the internet's boogeyman instead of 4chan
>>70869662
>YOU SHOULDNT JUDGE THINGS YOU HAVE NOT EVEN WATCHED, JAMES ROLFE!
I cannot understand this statement that all the Ghostbusters 2016 defenders are using against AVGN and other haters of this new movie.
You HAVE to judge movies during a trailer. That is the point of fucking trailers, because in order to see the movie, you have to PAY for a ticket. What the Ghostbuster 2016 defenders are saying is "YOU CAN ONLY COMPLAIN ABOUT GHOSTBUSTERS 2016 AFTER YOU HAVE PAID $15 TO SEE IT"
What the fuck bullshit argument is that? Giving money to the people who made the thing you are being critical about is the only way to complain, otherwise you are being an asshole?
fucking retarded
>The new “Ghostbusters,” which, by the way, has been generating positive reactions in test screenings, according to Sony executives
/tv/ BTFO
>He's ending Monster Madness
Did they break him?
![0f1c0fa9-6f02-0192-d56a-9493cee18fa7[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/G6dzR48.jpg "0f1c0fa9-6f02-0192-d56a-9493cee18fa7[1].jpg")
>>70870378
>>70870384
>Hey John! One of the viewers in the test audience survived the mass suicide!
>Damn Mick, that's some good feedback, he must have loved it
>>70869662
Holy fuck, the dude is big enough to be in the papers?
>>70870329
>Patton Oswalt vs Twitter Edgelords
>>70870384
>test screenings
They just round up random retards at malls for those.
>>70870450
The dude was the very first video Lets Play-er.
Damn right he's big.
>>70870378
>>70870443
amen.
Dont understand this logic from the chilltbuster.
The trailer should be a comprehension about what to expect.
>But its only a Trailer
Than why do they make a Trailer with film scenes?
>>70870384
>according to Sony executives
hmmmmmmm
>>70869662
>new york times
>>70869869
>women
>suffering
How do people honestly think this? I know your post is bait but there a those out there that somehow think the most protected group of people in the western world are somehow suffering.
>>70869662
How are they mad at this man? When he's not doing the Angry Nerd bit James is the least offensive man I've seen on youtube. You would think they would pick a video that was at least actually sexist. Why are they so determined to put James on the chopping block?
>>70870329
>haha this guy just lost his wife am I right???
Twitter's full of edgy kids, what's new?
>>70870715
His post isn't bait, it's satire.
Fuck people are stupid.
>>70869662
>Mr. Judging Before Seeing was mad because people were judging before seeing.
except one is a fucking free video that is 6 minutes long and one is fucking 2 hours and costs 50 bucks if you go with friends
>>70870384
>according to Sony executives
lmao
>The new “Ghostbusters,” which, by the way, has been generating positive reactions in test screenings, according to Sony executives.
This is the most insecure sentence I've ever read.
>>70870735
The writer isn't actually mad, they're one of three things:
>fishing for free gender wars clicks
>virtue signalling
>getting paid by sony
>>70870786
FACT
>>70870599
We've in the age of instant communication, a trailer is not advertisment anymore it's something that is part of the entire packaging that a franchise is.
so if you are not on board the hype train from the trailer,you are missing out.
And in this case, it's wrong to be missing out because reasons.
>>70870795
>implying they can't be al lthree
>implying the aren't very likely to be all three
>or at least two
>>70870329
You do know you're proving their point by being edgy retards, right? This isn't even funny, it's just disrespectful. DUDE UR WIFE DIED LMAO. Holy shit, this shit used to be funny in 2010, but grow out of it man.
>>70870715
Most people don't think that, but the people that do are broken down into groups.
>White knights
They want to save their princess and be the hero, because deep down they see women as lesser and in need of saving
>Diva women
These bitches want more of everything and anything they don't get is because you're attacking them
>Feminists
These people are power hungry cunts with no marketable skills, so they try to shift the power dynamic by bullshitting, think corrupt CEO personality types
>Idiots
These people genuinely believe what they say because they read it in an article, why would a blog lie?
>>70870487
AND NOW HE SANK THE ALL FEMALE GIMMICK GHOSBUSTERS
TRULY THE HERO THE WORLD BOTH NEEDS AND DESERVES
BACK TO THE KITCHEN YOU WEAKER SEX SUB-HUMANS!
>>70870854
Not everyone is your age bro
There will always be edgy 15 year olds
>>70870854
>you're
who are you mad at exactly? the crossover between people that post on twitter and people that post on /tv/ are literal teenagers. they're going to do the exact opposite of what you tell them to do until the day they get their first job. there's no point arguing.
>>70869662
Basically people think shit like this is important enough to make such a huge fuss about when, in truth, it isn't. Humanity is pure garbage and the whole planet would be better off if we were all wiped out.
>>70870735
Because they want to make sure people know that if you're not fully embracing and spouting their rhetoric, you're a potential target. Even if you're the most mild, non-threatening person, if you have a different opinion than the SJWs, they'll go after you. They want to suppress speech and all dissidents, until everyone agrees that women are superior, there are an unlimited amount of genders, pedophilia and bestiality are fine and not race mixing is a crime, and anyone who dares disagree will be shot in the back of the head.
>>70870819
yeah, so it seems, poor cinema industry today
>sniff
>>70871064
it wouldn't be too bd if the studios themselves weren't trying to play into it even when they don't really know how.
the best thing they could do for standalone movies (which are a dying notion for mainstream/pop movies anyway) is to let it all be and not try to fit the expectations and demands of an audience that is never satisfied.
>>70870854
>disrespectful
I'm 26 and age is no excuse for being a bitch.
>>70869662
>“I keep fixating on his wedding ring,” the film critic and humorist Eric D. Snider wrote on Twitter. “Someone MARRIED this man-baby.” (Mr. Snider later deleted his tweet.)
I learned one thing from this article.
>>70871762
That screams of "Why do girls date jerks, and they ignore nice guys like me!"
The salt is fucking real.
