One of the biggest summer blockbusters of 2016 is coming out this weekend, and it’s also one of the biggest films flooded with the most controversy. I’m talking about Ghostbusters(2016) of course; the reboot directed by Paul Feig, starring Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, and the shining star of the current SNL cast, Kate McKinnon. Four incredibly funny ladies, a director who aces comedy, and and a much loved franchise. Isn’t that all you could want? Not according to much of the internet, especially the corners of the internet populated with men who grew up as “fans” of the original Ghostbusters(1984) who are preaching venomously against this supposed sacrilege of their cultural icon. These people have been attacking this film to tenfold, more than any other reboot in recent memory, and it’s clearly coded with blatant and outright sexism. In the wake of the movies impending release, these people have come out of the woodwork once again, putting their all into putting down the film, refusing to watch it, just as they did when the trailer came out. They refuse to even see the film for themselves and form their own opinion of it. To put this all into context, and paint a picture of the criticism that is purely steeped in sexism hiding behind elitism, James Rolfe aka AVGN (Angry Video Game Nerd) lived up to his name in a video he posted for cinemassacre.com, explaining why he would not be going to see the new Ghostbusters, let alone review it. All of this, he based solely on the trailer that came out a long while ago.

Rolfe states in the beginning of his video,“I watch a lot of bad movies.” He goes on,“This isn’t any movie. It’s Ghostbusters.” Rolfe can’t help but hold this movie up to a different standard. Condemning it where he didn’t condemn other ‘bad movies,’ because of his love for the original and his outrage at the reboot. He explains that it’s title is a “shameless attempt to bank on the name” and that it will “take advantage of the younger generations who might not have seen the original. They’ll see it without feeling like there’s any prerequisite.”

There shouldn’t be a prerequisite. it’s a reboot, not a sequel. This is nerd-boy sexism to a T. They don’t want to allow anyone else into their elite “club,” and when new people, especially women, begin to take an interest in it do to a less obscure part of the fandom, they are in an uproar, claiming that they are a “fake geek girl,” for not having gotten their first.

What the hell? You don’t own the fandom. You don’t get a medal for having been old enough to have seen the original when it came out. It doesn’t make you any better. Seeing this movie first doesn’t effect that. If anything, it’ll introduce the new generation to the original films. Also, can we just take a moment and respect Ghostbusters(1984) for what it was, and not over exaggerate it’s brilliance. It was a fun, classic comedy scifi flick from the 80s that spurred a massive fandom in geekdom. There are so many other movies that came out around that time period you could say the same thing about. This film was not a work of art. It’s not the end all be all of cinema. Let’s stop treating it that way.

Rolfe goes on, “Now whenever you look up the original movies, your gonna see Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters (2016) It’s piggybacking on the name.”

Wow. Your google searching is harder? Try searching for virtually anything. We live in an era of reboots, sequels and prequels. It’s been that way for a while. This isn’t the only one. Yet, this is a point of contention? Why the outrage that sounds like a whiny child rather than a composed an unbiased reviewer? Oh yeah, because it’s got women in it. Let’s not pretend it’s anything else. All of your arguments are only backed up because the very image of this movie upsets you. It upsets you because you can’t handle the fact that your fun, male-led blockbuster film from the eighties that you considered your own is being rebooted with women. That’s where the actual anger spurs from, because that’s what ultimately makes this reboot different from any other. That’s what is hiding behind all of these points, because all of the points being made are virtually non-sequiturs. It’s not about the reboot. It’s about the cast, and the fact that you’re afraid it’s going to be good. You want to dismiss it before you even see it because seeing it could prove you wrong and show that “women can be funny.” We shouldn’t even have to say that anymore. You want to judge it based on a trailer for a comedy film, something that has long since proven to be a bad representation of the movie, dismissing the fact that the leads in it are some of the funniest people around. They are perfect. In fact, right now, it’s the women on Saturday Night Live that are killing it. They are the ones who have pulled the last few seasons well above mediocre and delivered some of the best performances. In fact, most people are excited for the movie, not because it’s Ghostbusters, but but because they love the cast.

Also, this argument regarding the title is virtually pointless. What should they call it? It’s a Ghostbusters reboot. Every other reboot has used the name of it’s original. That’s the point. You want fans to recognize it as a reboot and for what it is. If they called it anything else, wouldn’t that just be so incredibly not strategic? The movie industry and those investing in this project aren’t going to make a title that will garner them less money, just because you’re upset in your bedroom that it will ruin your google searches and it’s not “honorable.” I hate to inform everyone and break the charade, but Hollywood is a business. It’s run like a business.

Discussing the use of the title further, Rolfe says, “By using the name, it’s pretending to be original in it’s own right, and sweeping the first one under the rug as if it didn’t happen. As if it’s not based on anything preexisting.”

What does this even mean? The film has been nothing but supportive of the original, and the remaining original cast has been nothing but supportive of the new film. Strategy and money making however, is just the nature of the film industry as a whole. It strategically makes sense for them to call it the same thing as the film they are rebooting, capitalizing on the name, because why else would you reboot something. I hate to break it to you, but movies are made to make money. It’s just how it works. It’s naive to think any studio or any producer would willingly make a decision that would prevent their product from making the most money for them possible. The original franchise was the same way. It’s why Ghostbusters II was called Ghostbusters II, not something else. It’s why Harry Potter and the Cursed Child name-drops Harry Potter, despite reports saying the play revolves more around the younger generation and Harry’s relation to them, rather than Harry himself. It’s smart business, plain and simple. If you are ignorant enough to believe that the movie industry is an industry that solely is propelled by art and originality, you are sorely mistaken. That’s just not how it works. That’s never really been how it works; especially not in Hollywood, and any big blockbuster or reboot comes out of that machine. Stating something that is just the truth of the industry the piece of work you are critiquing is being produced from as a fault of the work itself is a nonevent. It’s not an argument, because it’s prevalent in virtually every Hollywood movie you watch.

He then cites the Star Trek reboot as an example of a reboot done right; yet what exactly is it doing differently? The 2009 film was called Star Trek, so that one nonissue cannot be checked off here. It’s still “piggybacking” off of the success of the originals. He claims that the inclusion of Leonard Nimoy in the film as older Spock was what made it better, because he was “passing” the torch down to the new cast. Does the leaked fact that the original Ghostbusters actors are appearing in the reboot not count towards that same positive attribute? Why is that any different? Oh yeah, because up until recently (insert link), the new Star Trek didn’t really break boundaries in updating the series for a modern audience. That’s whats really eating away at everyone, because other than that, it’s not doing anything else formulaically different than reboots we’ve seen in the past. The inclusion of women as leads of this film is just too much for them. It’s too “different,” that it somehow disquiets these people so much to the point where it becomes offensive.

Continuing to speak positively about these other reboots, Rolfe says, “A little fan service goes a long way”

He then proceeds to cite Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which in a similar, but much more apparent way than the new Star Trek films, is a sequel. It’s not a reboot. Thus you can’t compare the two. Of course it has to include story points, characters, and markers from the old films, because it’s a direct sequel. It’s continuing said story. That’s why comparing the two isn’t really possible, as it’s a clear continuation story where as Ghostbusters is an inspired by remake, telling it’s own tale.

He then brings up the fact that this movie is actually including the original actors still with us, as he said he wanted, but states his contention with the fact that they are appearing in this film as cameos, rather than their original roles. This movie is literally supposed to be a reboot. Either you understand that or you don’t. They wanted to do their own thing. They wanted to be original, an attribute he cited as positive just the other minute. Yet, they also wanted to pay tribute without forcing a connection or telling a story they didn’t want to tell. Is that not what he just said he wanted? Is it not enough that the original Ghostbusters are being featured in the first place, not to mention the amount of references and markers that are solely there for fan service? What is the difference?

What’s worse is that literally all of these arguments are based on a trailer that even one of the actresses stated she didn't enjoy and expressed that it clearly didn’t showcase the movie. Most trailers don’t. Especially comedy trailers. Trailers are made by studios, not filmmakers, and the amount of comedy film trailers that don't remotely encompass how funny the film actually is more than you could count. Even the Deadpool (2016) trailer released for a film that had a lot of hype was nowhere near as brilliant, funny, or incredible as the film itself. Judging a film by it’s trailer is almost impossible to do today, especially comedies. However, even when the word of mouth reviews are positive, praising the film and how funny it is, these people still get stuck on the trailer, ignoring what is actually being said about the movie, by people who have actually seen it.

The notion that this movie is a “corporate sellout” is completely absurd because the whole movie business is. That’s why it’s a business. To pretend it’s anything otherwise is just ignorant. The movies that are actually playing in every theater are all corporate sell outs. We live in a time of reboots, sequels, prequels and so on, but you’ve never seen any of the others get attacked with such venomous hate and protestation. One must wonder why, but it’s clear to see, in all of the comments, in all of the negativity, that the real answer is misogyny. These people are so elitist and hold a film that is purely fun and good, as the highest caliber of cinema, and their venomous protestation of this new film is not only heaped in sexism, but it denies what is so great about this reboot. These franchises aren’t yours. You don’t own them. You don’t own the right to feel represented in them. The fact that there will now be Ghostbuster costumes for little girls, that they’ll be inspired by the ladies in this movie, see themselves represented as funny, smart, and fully realized people in a summer blockbuster is incredible and it’s rare.

People have praised the fact that these women’s arcs aren’t about a love interest or a man. The fact that that’s something to be checked off as outstanding shows how rare it is, despite the fact that it should be the bare minimum. Now, little girls can watch the movie and aspire to the impossible. They can dream and they can enjoy a franchise without feeling neglected from it. Little girls need to see Kate McKinnon’s wacky scientist, and Leslie Jones’ incredibly knowledgeable, courageous, and hilarious MTA worker who knows all of New York’s history and landmarks better than everyone else. They need to see these women unabashedly being hilarious and upfront, and most importantly; Ghostbusters. They need to see that it’s possible. The more little girls dressed up as Ghostbusters this Halloween, the better, and the more movies this inspires, be it franchises, comedies, or otherwise the better. Thank you Paul Feig. Thank you Leslie Jones, Kate McKinnon, Kristen Wiig, and Melissa McCarthy. No matter how this film actually measures up to the impossible expectations, what it will do means more than anything.