*sigh*
I think basically because you happened to be in the minority of people who agreed with Roeper on that, you missed the point entirely.
The point is basically: Why do I care that Richard Roeper said something? So did a bunch of critics. And we're back to 78%. Some guy saying something is not a retort to 87 people including that guy saying something.
*SIIIIIIIIIIGH*
You should care because he reviewed the movie without getting bogged down in the bullshit about sexism, racism, feminism, etc. He touched on it, he said "there has been controversy", and then he elaborated on why—standing completely alone, aside of all that bullshit, and
on its merits alone—he believes it's (in his words) "
one of the worst movies of the year for multiple other reasons".
Remember what I said about puff pieces? I'll start quoting from the most recent positive reviews aggregated on Rotten Tomatoes. See if you can figure out the common theme. (These excerpts all happen to be the very first paragraphs of the articles.)
"GHOSTBUSTERS REVIEW – AND THE MOVIE IS A GIDDY, HIGH-SPIRITED HOOT" by Luke Buckmaster — dailyreview.com.au
Much has been made of Ghostbusters returning to the big screen with a female-led cast and the retilting of the gender scales complete with Chris Hemsworth playing a himbo receptionist. According to the grapevine, diehard fanboys of the original are currently gathered in man caves cussing and moaning about feminazis taking control, in between swigs of Coke and mouthfuls of Domino’s pizza.
"The new “Ghostbusters†delivers: It’s a cheerful exercise in feminist nostalgia — except, wait, is that possible?" by Andrew O'Hehir — Salon.com
Is Paul Feig’s “Ghostbusters†remake, supposedly shrouded in supposed controversy ever since its supposedly subversive casting was announced, an exercise in feminism or in nostalgia? If this highly entertaining summer retread proves anything, it proves that those things are not incompatible. In some respects Feig’s film is an overly dutiful and respectful homage to the 1984 hit that represented a fusion of the National Lampoon spirit with Hollywood, and is now regarded as a comedy classic. Ivan Reitman, who directed the earlier film, helped produce this one, and at this point it can’t possibly be a spoiler to tell you that Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson appear in cameo roles. (Only the Ghostbusters, sadly, could make contact with original co-writer and co-star Harold Ramis.)
But at other times, including most of its better moments, Feig’s “Ghostbusters†is a goofy, free-floating romp with an anarchic spirit of its own, a fresh set of scares and laffs and a moderate dose of girl power that is unlikely to seem confrontational to anyone beyond the most confirmed basement-dwelling Gamergate troll. (Did I just indiscriminately slime an entire subset of the male Internet population? Oops.)
"Movie review: 'Ghostbusters' reboot is a hoot" by Katie Walsh — Tribune News Service
Much of the conversation around the gender-swapped remake of "Ghostbusters" has been protests from (mostly) male fans of the original, who don't want to see women in the roles popularized by Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson in the 1984 original. But what's the fun in re-creating a direct facsimile of a piece of art or entertainment?
"‘Ghostbusters’ Review: ‘Bustin Will Make You Feel Good" by Matt Goldberg — collider.com
There’s no way to set Ghostbusters 2016 apart from its controversy. There’s a vocal minority who sees the original as sacred, and they view this iteration as an abomination. On one level, I can sympathize. If someone tried to remake The Graduate or The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, I would question the wisdom of that decision. Those movies are personal favorites of mine as well as undisputed classics, so remaking them can be seen as a decision made out of avarice, and I am shocked that studios are in the business of making money. And then if you change the dynamics, well then we’re off to the races. Now the film is being turned into a social statement, and heaven forbid art ever make us think about the state of society.
For the people who are opposed to Ghostbusters 2016, there’s nothing I can say that can convince you that Paul Feig’s remake has both a genuine love for the original but also tries to do something new and worthwhile. If you’re someone who’s leaving negative reviews on IMDb or Internet comments sections without having seen the film, then your mind is made up. You can come up with reasons to dismiss this positive review (“He’s part of the feminist agenda!â€; “He was paid off!â€; “He’s in the pocket of Big Woman!â€), and I leave you to it.
"Ghostbusters movie review: boo yeah!" by Maryann Johanson — FlickFilosopher.com
My reaction to the idea of an all-female Ghostbusters reboot? I am desperate for movies about women doing all sorts of things — including silly stuff like engaging in experimental particle physics, playing around with total protonic reversal, and saving New York City — but I would also like women to get their own stories and the opportunity to create their own iconic characters. I knew that even if this remake turned out to be completely amazing, any success would come with an asterisk.
Notice it yet? Notice how none of them can separate their reviews from the gender bullshit? The one even starts his review off with "There’s no way to set Ghostbusters 2016 apart from its controversy." How 'bout you fucking try, Matt Goldberg of collider.com?
Do you not see the problem inherent in this? No, you don't, I know you don't because you say as much, but lets move on and I'll come back to it.
The second one wasn't even that good, and Bill Murray hated it. Never the less, ever since then, there have been talks about a third Ghostbusters, and no one seemed to care until one finally got underway with a female cast.
You didn't care about a third Ghostbusters; many people did. I did.
I find it hard to believe that there are so many people valiantly defending a classic work of art in this case. Like I said, you talking about standard stuff. And actually some reboots have lately been made of some really culturally significant stuff. You know, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc... But this one is total garbage before anyone's seen it. This one can't be any good even after reviews put it at 78%.
Really? You find it that hard to believe when the very same "reboots" you make mention of were vociferously criticized for being lame cash-ins?
Are you fucking kidding me? Star Wars?! People
HATED the Star Wars 'prequels'!
Star Trek Into Darkness was lambasted for being a lame re-tread of
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. And have you not considered that all of these lame reboots and sequels have contributed to the hate for the new Ghostbusters, that
maybe people are finally fed up with it all and are saying "enough's enough"?
I didn't think I was hiding.
Oh but you were. We all know what you were insinuating: I hate the movie and I've never even seen it, so I must be a sexist. You were just too much of a chicken-shit to say it in so few words. But...
Motivated in that you wanted it to be bad. You don't want it to get good ratings. Perhaps due to sexism.
…
there you go. That wasn't so hard now was it?
Though, from the looks of it, it seems slightly more complicated than an immediate aversion to the female cast. More like irritation over the ensuing discussion about sexism where you are insufficiently appreciate the side complaining about sexism. Like one of those guys who interprets any talk of sexism to railroad the discussion into a monolouge about how you personally aren't a sexist.
Remember all those review excerpts from above, and how I said we'd come back to them? Let's come back to them now.
Did you notice how those piece of shit articles start off by slagging
anyone who dares disagree? You probably didn't, so I'll summarize for you. Luke Buckmaster says detractors of the movie are "in man caves cussing and moaning about feminazis taking control, in between swigs of Coke and mouthfuls of Domino’s pizza." Andrew O'Hehir says it's "a moderate dose of girl power that is unlikely to seem confrontational to anyone beyond the most confirmed basement-dwelling Gamergate troll. (Did I just indiscriminately slime an entire subset of the male Internet population? Oops.)"
Oops! Katie Walsh says "the conversation around [the film] has been protests from (mostly) male fans of the original, who don't want to see women in the [lead] roles". Matt Goldberg fucking
shrouds himself in it, saying "You can come up with reasons to dismiss this positive review (“He’s part of the feminist agenda!â€; “He was paid off!â€; “He’s in the pocket of Big Woman!â€), and I leave you to it."
So why the fuck
do you think I feel like I have to defend myself as "not a sexist" when their narrative, and yours, paints me and anyone else as a fucking sexist for deigning to have a problem with what looks like a stupid movie that's cashing in on the reputation and name of A MOVIE THAT I'M A HUGE FAN OF!?!?
DUH! Are you that fucking dense?
I take issue with people trying to assert that there is no meaningful distortion coming from that (you'd fall into this category at least).
And I take issue with people trying to assert that any meaningful criticism of the film, coming from any man, is coming from a place of sexism or misogyny. And you didn't
fall into that, you dove head first into it and bathed yourself in it like a pig in shit.
My problem with you is succinctly captured in this quote: "You don't want it to get good ratings. Perhaps due to sexism." It's a lame strawman, and you're a gutless coward for using it. It's like if I said, "You don't want to accept that there is legitimate criticism of this film. Perhaps due to pederasty."
I desperately wanted this movie to be good, and I'm profoundly sad that it's not.