(Blog) The problem with reboots: In defense of James Rolfe

    

    The James Rolfe situation sure stirred up a massive storm. But that is to be expected when one tries to deflect any sort of criticism by means of accusing another of being sexist or prejudiced. In this case, a bunch of people are saying that about James Rolfe. That's the worst part about this fiasco. The bad part is that we're not allowed to have an opinion anymore. 

So! In defense of James Rolfe, the Angry Videogame Nerd, I'm going to go into explicit detail exactly what the problem is and why many of us are infuriated with the directions and changes made to beloved classic films. 

Rebooting a franchise is one of the most delicate processes that requires sensitive handling and care of the source material. Whether it be a film, book or movie, there are always going to be complications that will impede such an attempt. Of course, there are very few actually good film and game reboots made in the past. They stick as close to the source material as they can without deviating too far from what made them so iconic in the first place. A few exceptions can be made but only if they actually pulled it off right.

Ghostbusters is not one of those exceptions. What Ghostbusters is, is a piece of media fabricated by the likes of Hollywood filmmakers to cash in by combining the lowest common denominator who thinks the all female cast is progressive and therefore, automatically render the film good, and the most recent (were talking bout early 2000s 1990s fans here btw) who are growing up in an age without standards are willing to shell their monies out over baseless nostalgia that lacks context.

Looking at the trailer of the movie, I knew right away that it was not going to capture the spirit of the Ghostbusters franchise not one bit. I've been a Ghostbusters fan since I was a kid. (I was fortunate that I was one of those 90s kid who did not set the bar that low) I liked it. And the 2nd one. But even if my mind wasn't so fully adapted to critical thinking and being aware of the creative medium, I knew exactly exactly how and why they were such good films. 

You see, films have structure, just like any creative medium. They have a foundation that lays the groundwork for sets, camera positioning and angling, how to use said cameras and how to utilize practical special effects to create a more vibrant and believable setting that is there to tell the story rather than to just look good. And for that part, Ghsotbusters really did a fantastic job on it. The plot's simple enough; three intelligent  professors form their own ghost catching organization after being subsequently fired from their job. Their new job? Simple! Capturing and containing rogue spirits that are causing havoc on the human world. While yeah you get the humor and slapstick, said slapstick does not take up half of the entire movie. (This is a common problem that you see in many many other films; especially adaptation films such as that of The Lorax, The Cat in the Hat and even Horton Hears a Who. Made worse by pop cultural references that don't need to be included.) The humor is there because it is primarily based around each character and their personality, not because the entire film itself is a strictly comedic film. 

Regardless, even if you attempt to replace the female actors in with male actors in the 2016 version, the result would be the same. An unfocused, unfaithful reboot of the first film that deviates heavily from the source material in an effort to cash in on Nostalgia fueled by adolescent fans who are keenly unaware of the creative aspects the first movie had. 

It's all about character, all about development in both their part, and the story's. While you can certainly make a good story, it's practically nothing without good character development. And if you don't have either, you're itching for a fight with the old dedicated fanbase who are still relevant in this day and age, now matter how much you bully them into thinking otherwise.

Each character had personality and structure that defines who they are. They have clear motivations, reasoning and with a background to show exactly why they even give a damn about ghosts messing around New York. Some had started off for selfish reasons before realizing the big picture and how much of a threat these spirits represent for not just the city of New York but for the world. 

When I saw the new Ghostbuster trailer, it was basically nothing. I saw nothing that would indicate I am going to give a damn about this movie. We basically are given no structural background information on what the movie is even going to be about other than these four middle aged women form a paranormal containment agency that deals with capturing ghosts... that no one else seems to be able to see. You know the first two movies had the public seeing ghosts. So why exactly did this need to change? The film didn't call for it.
Not only do these new Ghostbusters lack clear characteristics, but they also lack professionalism. (I mean we see the scene where they are talking to the mayor about an incident and tried to assure them that everyone must remain calm. Before instantly cuing to them screaming like scared chickens to get out of the city. 
The trailer also attempted to procure any amount of amusement I may have for it. The scene where they chase the Baphomet looking ghost on a concert stage, where the token black chick jumps into the crowd because the other lady did it, this was her response: "I don't know if that was a race thing, or a lady thing, but I'm mad as hell." This was practically childish and unnecessary. First I like to point out that the other movies had no racial or gender issue; they were just people being people and that's all you need form it. It doesn't need any sociopolitical nonsense, even if you attempt to make it funny, shoved down our throats to make us flinch. 
This trailer didn't give us any context and attempted to shove so many things happening all at once. This also violates the basic principle of storytelling; keep the story consistent and focused. I didn't get to hear any additional information about these new Ghostbusters and now I don't think I'd want to.

Last but not least, to try and paint this film as a sort of progressive piece and that we need a change sounds pretentious and ignorant. You're sacrificing creative freedom and creative integrity to sell this broken concept to the general audience all because it portrays females in the main spotlight. You are also forcing people to pay for, and watch, a movie that they will probably not like and you are making the company who made such a shit product cash they have not earned. To push the motive forward, you ignore past films where there are female characters played by good actors, with well written characteristics that make them more interesting and intriguing than the characters you show now. You ignore Ripley, who survived countless ordeals with not one, but multiple aggressive Xenomorph threats in Alien and Aliens. You ignore Princess Leia, a well written and complex  character who is caught indirectly helping the rebel cause, to actively working with them from Film 1 to Film 2 of the Star Wars Original Trilogy, and becomes a prominent fighter and politician who's wounds are still healing from the destruction of her home planet. 

To try and deflect criticism and deny one's opinion, by accusations of prejudice is a cheap, underhanded, corrupt tactic to force individuals to conform with your line of thinking. The problem lies in our ability to stand up against these kind of people and refuse their movie, deny their abuse and their control over you and the creative medium at large.