It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22647
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Jennifer » 02 Aug 2016, 13:31

Sandy wrote:
Jennifer wrote:So ... this means it's reasonable for people to actually take offense when a remake of the movie 30 years later should feature Ghostbusters who have no dicks?
Sure, if you ignore all the context and caveats, that's exactly what we're getting at.
When you said "Were I a feminist, it sounds like I'd be disappointed in the actual product, lacking suitable misandry or other ideological purity," was that context or caveat?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12338
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Eric the .5b » 02 Aug 2016, 13:32

So, why is "ideology", in the terrifying guise of "let's make a film with a small group of female leads, because it's usually a small group of male leads in this genre", an invalid thing again?

Why is it worth the freakouts and anger?

Since when have intentions had to be pure to make a fucking Hollywood movie?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Sandy » 02 Aug 2016, 13:34

Jennifer wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Jennifer wrote:So ... this means it's reasonable for people to actually take offense when a remake of the movie 30 years later should feature Ghostbusters who have no dicks?
Sure, if you ignore all the context and caveats, that's exactly what we're getting at.
When you said "Were I a feminist, it sounds like I'd be disappointed in the actual product, lacking suitable misandry or other ideological purity," was that context or caveat?
It was an unrelated joke, but one based on having spent more time reading modern feminism than you have.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26280
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 02 Aug 2016, 13:37

Eric the .5b wrote:So, why is "ideology", in the terrifying guise of "let's make a film with a small group of female leads, because it's usually a small group of male leads in this genre", an invalid thing again?

Why is it worth the freakouts and anger?

Since when have intentions had to be pure to make a fucking Hollywood movie?
It seems like people want to have gender-blind casting, or something.

Look, gender is a thing. It is. It affects human interaction. That doesn't mean you have to go essentialist-turned-to-11 with it and either justify all sorts of old-fashioned shit or all sorts of new progressive shit, but it does mean that a story that's rooted in a bunch of friends hanging out and being zany with each other can have a different vibe depending on if those zany friends are male or female or a mixed group. There's nothing wrong with deciding to tell one of those stories instead of another. There are, of course, stupidly self-congratulatory ways to tell some of those stories, and I'll be the first to gripe over stupidly self-congratulatory shit related to gender, but this wasn't one of those movies.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22647
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Jennifer » 02 Aug 2016, 13:42

Sandy wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Jennifer wrote:So ... this means it's reasonable for people to actually take offense when a remake of the movie 30 years later should feature Ghostbusters who have no dicks?
Sure, if you ignore all the context and caveats, that's exactly what we're getting at.
When you said "Were I a feminist, it sounds like I'd be disappointed in the actual product, lacking suitable misandry or other ideological purity," was that context or caveat?
It was an unrelated joke, but one based on having spent more time reading modern feminism than you have.
Similar to how our old friend Zulu as Kono has spent more time reading modern libertarianism than anybody here has done -- or at least, she spends a lot more time seeking out the worst dregs from the bottom of that particular online barrel. (Did you know that most modern libertarians are Muslim-hating bigots who worry about "white genocide"? I learned this by reading Eric Dondunderhead's Twitter feed!)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22647
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Jennifer » 02 Aug 2016, 14:05

thoreau wrote:
Eric the .5b wrote:So, why is "ideology", in the terrifying guise of "let's make a film with a small group of female leads, because it's usually a small group of male leads in this genre", an invalid thing again?

Why is it worth the freakouts and anger?

Since when have intentions had to be pure to make a fucking Hollywood movie?
It seems like people want to have gender-blind casting, or something.
Regarding the knee-jerk complaints that came out before anybody even saw the movie, it sounds like they're looking at this from the assumption "A movie with male leads is the acceptable norm, but any deviation from that norm better have a damned good reason to justify it."

When the Battlestar Galactica remake first came out -- before it started to suck -- I recall similar anger over the revelation that New Starbuck would be a woman rather than a man.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Sandy » 02 Aug 2016, 14:14

Jennifer wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Jennifer wrote:So ... this means it's reasonable for people to actually take offense when a remake of the movie 30 years later should feature Ghostbusters who have no dicks?
Sure, if you ignore all the context and caveats, that's exactly what we're getting at.
When you said "Were I a feminist, it sounds like I'd be disappointed in the actual product, lacking suitable misandry or other ideological purity," was that context or caveat?
It was an unrelated joke, but one based on having spent more time reading modern feminism than you have.
Similar to how our old friend Zulu as Kono has spent more time reading modern libertarianism than anybody here has done -- or at least, she spends a lot more time seeking out the worst dregs from the bottom of that particular online barrel. (Did you know that most modern libertarians are Muslim-hating bigots who worry about "white genocide"? I learned this by reading Eric Dondunderhead's Twitter feed!)
So you're just going to focus on this now because you looked at my original post and realized, in the words of a Concerned Student 1950, "You lost this one, bro!"?
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22647
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Jennifer » 02 Aug 2016, 14:24

Sandy wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Jennifer wrote:So ... this means it's reasonable for people to actually take offense when a remake of the movie 30 years later should feature Ghostbusters who have no dicks?
Sure, if you ignore all the context and caveats, that's exactly what we're getting at.
When you said "Were I a feminist, it sounds like I'd be disappointed in the actual product, lacking suitable misandry or other ideological purity," was that context or caveat?
It was an unrelated joke, but one based on having spent more time reading modern feminism than you have.
Similar to how our old friend Zulu as Kono has spent more time reading modern libertarianism than anybody here has done -- or at least, she spends a lot more time seeking out the worst dregs from the bottom of that particular online barrel. (Did you know that most modern libertarians are Muslim-hating bigots who worry about "white genocide"? I learned this by reading Eric Dondunderhead's Twitter feed!)
So you're just going to focus on this now because you looked at my original post and realized, in the words of a Concerned Student 1950, "You lost this one, bro!"?
I didn't realize my single comment equated to "focus." But I will admit that, from what I've seen, I think your knowledge of modern feminism is roughly on par with ZaK's knowledge of modern libertarianism.

I do think Eric had a good question, though: since when do intentions have to be "pure" to make a Hollywood summer movie? Plus a question of my own: why are the "impure" motivations of someone who says "Hey, let's make a movie with female leads rather than males" worse than any other "impure" motivations?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12356
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by the innominate one » 02 Aug 2016, 17:49

It's not simply a movie with female leads instead of male. Bridesmaids is that (I assume that's the case, it's on my to-watch list; possibly one of the bridesmaids is a sassy effeminate gay man, preferably black). That's an organic reason to have an all female leads cast. Ghostbusters is a remake of an all male leads movies with the conscious decision to make it all female leads for no reason organic to the story. The effective result is the same, but the perception of the motivation (and the actual motivation) differs.
Ellie wrote:I do think it would have reduced some of the fan/critic distaste if the women were all the daughters of the originals, but there's also something a little gross about that fact. Like those "she's someone's daughter/sister/wife" memes or pushy guys hitting on a woman who ignore "no, I'm not interested" but back off at "I have a boyfriend"* -- that somehow women are granted their acceptability by their proximity to a man instead of being accepted on their own terms.

Sorry, this comment is 8000 times more feminist than the movie.

Having an all-female Ghostbusters remake is gimmicky, but it's a gimmick I have zero problem with (and also the fact that an all-female movie is a gimmick doesn't say anything good about the current state of Hollywood.)


* I recently read a really great essay about that but can't find it, boooooo
It's an understandable concern that women shouldn't be defined just in terms of their relationships to men, but that ship sailed when they decided to do a remake of this movie. Comparisons were inevitable. Have an all-female leads movie, but do something original. The Elf Hunters. The Dwarf Killers. The Faerie Fuckers. The Naiad Explorers. Don't remake The Goonies with an all-female cast.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26280
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 02 Aug 2016, 18:01

the innominate one wrote:It's not simply a movie with female leads instead of male. Bridesmaids is that (I assume that's the case, it's on my to-watch list; possibly one of the bridesmaids is a sassy effeminate gay man, preferably black). That's an organic reason to have an all female leads cast. Ghostbusters is a remake of an all male leads movies with the conscious decision to make it all female leads for no reason organic to the story. The effective result is the same, but the perception of the motivation (and the actual motivation) differs.
Would "Well, why not?" be a good enough reason to do it with an all-woman team? To see if the camaraderie and rapport of the original Ghostbusters wisecracking with each other could carry over to a team of female comedians? Would it have been more of a stunt or less of a stunt if they had done gender-blind casting for the uptight one, the slouchy one, the crazy one, and the sassy black one?

Remember, guys, I'm one of the people on this forum most likely to post in the threads about political correctness and whatnot. But, honestly, this was a funny movie, and the parts that were disappointing were as disappointing as any other summer movie. I'll grant that it fell short of the high standard set by the first one, but that had nothing to do with gender politics and everything to do with (1) CGI climactic scene and (2) seriously, how many movies can live up to a classic?
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12338
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Eric the .5b » 02 Aug 2016, 18:46

the innominate one wrote:It's not simply a movie with female leads instead of male. Bridesmaids is that (I assume that's the case, it's on my to-watch list; possibly one of the bridesmaids is a sassy effeminate gay man, preferably black). That's an organic reason to have an all female leads cast. Ghostbusters is a remake of an all male leads movies with the conscious decision to make it all female leads for no reason organic to the story.
In the first place, stories are things written by people for a variety of reasons. Nothing about them just happens, and a lot of things happen in stories because of some concern or ideology of the writer.

In the second place, who the leads are is one of the fundamental premises of a story. It doesn't "organically" sprout from the story, it's part of where the story comes from. In the original movie, that the Ghostbusters were a blue-collar bunch of dudes operating on a shoestring was a deliberate decision of the writers.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12356
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by the innominate one » 02 Aug 2016, 19:00

IMDB wrote:Three odd-ball scientists get kicked out of their cushy positions at a university in New York City where they studied the occult.
Sounds blue-collar to me.

Organically arising from the context that they're copying a story that exists.

Thoreau- why not? is as valid a defense as why? is a criticism. Again, putting characters together played by talented comic actresses and see what chemistry happens is fine. This movie is probably fine. I simply asked whether it could be done without being so obviously contrived and might have avoided some of the b.s. and suggested a way it might have happened. If you're going to be derivative, it helps to explain why the characters are all female instead of "why not?"
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26280
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 02 Aug 2016, 19:42

I've been trying my hand at writing stories for several months now. I have umpteen million different reasons for picking the characters that I pick. Sometimes the story really does need a particular kind of character. Sometimes I think "Hey, it would be cool if this character were a woman because ____" and then I have a bunch of reasons. You, as a consumer, are of course under no obligation to like any particular story or character, but demanding strict justification for female characters is a rather ludicrous preference. I'm generally impatient with the absolutist pronouncements on aesthetics that people like to offer here, but I have my limits.

As to whether the Ghostbusters were "blue collar", obviously their original jobs did not match with any sort of blue collar reality, but Ray and Peter were played as personalities that more closely fit with the blue collar guys in 80's movies than with the upper-class archetypes in 80's movies. But more important than the word "blue collar" is that these characters fit particular archetypes, very male archetypes, and they were used to hilarious effect. In the new Ghostbusters I would say that Kristin Wiig and Leslie Jones played very female archetypes (albeit very different female archetypes) while Melissa McCarthy and Kate McKinnon played non-traditional female characters, and defied convention to hilarious effect.

And I fail to see what's wrong with any of this.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26280
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 02 Aug 2016, 19:45

I'm currently writing a story in which one of the characters is a cable news host. I could have used Bill O'Reilly as the model for my character, but I chose Nancy Grace instead. In the big picture I think I could have spun an interesting story with either one, but in the specifics that actually make or break a story I think Nancy Grace (mashed up with another TV character) is actually a better choice for the idea that leaped into my head. Do I need to justify using a lady in my story, lest somebody accuse me of making a feminist statement? Or, if she comes across negative, do I need to justify the choice to assure everyone that I wasn't trying to promote patriarchy?

Ideological tests ruin stories.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13438
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Kolohe » 02 Aug 2016, 19:46

thoreau wrote:So, yeah, when somebody makes a movie with a bunch of female leads there's probably a gender politics motivation. If they bring together a bunch of mediocre women to make a mediocre movie, and pat themselves on the back in the process, yeah, I'll roll my eyes.

If they bring together a bunch of actresses with real on-screen rapport and it comes through in a good movie, I'm not going to gripe.

Honestly, while there were problems with this movie, none of them were related to the casting. They got four actresses who worked really well together. They were funny together. It worked. What didn't work was that in the last third of it the writers said "OK, it's a summer movie, it involves the supernatural, and they're saving the city. So it's time to stop the wise-cracking and do a CGI extravaganza." In the original Ghostbusters the writers said "OK, our heroes are facing the villain...time for some more sarcasm from Bill Murray."
To be fair it was wisecracking Bill Murray, deadpan Ernie Hudson, Sexy Sigourney Weaver *and* a CGI extravaganza (for the time)
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3679
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Painboy » 02 Aug 2016, 21:01

thoreau wrote:I've been trying my hand at writing stories for several months now. I have umpteen million different reasons for picking the characters that I pick. Sometimes the story really does need a particular kind of character. Sometimes I think "Hey, it would be cool if this character were a woman because ____" and then I have a bunch of reasons. You, as a consumer, are of course under no obligation to like any particular story or character, but demanding strict justification for female characters is a rather ludicrous preference. I'm generally impatient with the absolutist pronouncements on aesthetics that people like to offer here, but I have my limits.

As to whether the Ghostbusters were "blue collar", obviously their original jobs did not match with any sort of blue collar reality, but Ray and Peter were played as personalities that more closely fit with the blue collar guys in 80's movies than with the upper-class archetypes in 80's movies. But more important than the word "blue collar" is that these characters fit particular archetypes, very male archetypes, and they were used to hilarious effect. In the new Ghostbusters I would say that Kristin Wiig and Leslie Jones played very female archetypes (albeit very different female archetypes) while Melissa McCarthy and Kate McKinnon played non-traditional female characters, and defied convention to hilarious effect.

And I fail to see what's wrong with any of this.
I would argue despite their college backgrounds they are very blue collar. To me the whole vibe of the original movie came from the way they took the enormous metaphysical revelation of life after death and treated it like it was plumbing, complete with outrageous fees, unexpected work costs, and even putting a job position in the want ads (with apparently only one person answering it).

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18007
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by dbcooper » 02 Aug 2016, 21:06

The Red Letter Media videos were amusing, so that's as good as it gets for me.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14513
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Aresen » 02 Aug 2016, 21:15

I haven't seen either the original or GB2016. That style of comedy does not appeal to me.

The only thing I did see was the first official trailer. And that was really, really bad.

From what I saw in the trailer for GB2016, the main characters were trying to reprise the GB1984 characters rather than develop their own style. From those of you who saw GB2016, was that what happened, or did the trailer simply not do the movie justice (even allowing for the usual 'all the best jokes are in the trailer' hype)?
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12338
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Eric the .5b » 02 Aug 2016, 21:21

thoreau wrote:.As to whether the Ghostbusters were "blue collar", obviously their original jobs did not match with any sort of blue collar reality, but Ray and Peter were played as personalities that more closely fit with the blue collar guys in 80's movies than with the upper-class archetypes in 80's movies. But more important than the word "blue collar" is that these characters fit particular archetypes, very male archetypes, and they were used to hilarious effect. .
Exactly. And beyond that just look at the jobs they have for most of the movie. They're using high-tech gear to deal with the supernatural, and yet with that premise, they work out of a dirt-cheap place, have a low-budget commercial, and wear variations on road worker jumpsuits.

I mean, that's the fundamental gag of the movie.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26280
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 02 Aug 2016, 22:15

And when they need money to start their business they don't go to venture capitalists (or whatever the early 80's movie equivalent would be), but instead Ray takes out a loan against his childhood home. So he can start a small business where he wears coveralls.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12356
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by the innominate one » 02 Aug 2016, 22:35

That's the fundamental gag of the movie, that they wear jumpsuits. Okay.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26280
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 02 Aug 2016, 22:39

the innominate one wrote:That's the fundamental gag of the movie, that they wear jumpsuits. Okay.
No, the fundamental gag of the movie is that the supernatural turns out to be real and the solution to the problem is a bunch of glorified roach exterminators who spend most of their time wise-cracking or flirting with a client.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 02 Aug 2016, 22:47

Let. It. Die.

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18007
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by dbcooper » 02 Aug 2016, 22:50

+1
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26280
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 02 Aug 2016, 22:57

Fin Fang Foom wrote:Let. It. Die.
We tried that.

It came back as a full-torso apparition. And it's real.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests