Is there a system that adequately portrays the Ghostbusters?

>>48356359
InSpectres

There was also an official Ghostbusters RPG that was okay

>>48356359
How did they get Garfield dude to do a gender swapped photo?

File: ghostbusters-full-new-img.jpg (1MB, 1693x1074px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1693x1074px

>>48356359

Here have a correct OP image , nice cosplay OP image tho

>>48356359
There's a GURPS Ghostbusters fan book. It's actually pretty good.

>>48358280
Fuck that's good bait

>>48356359
Try the official Ghostbusters RPG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters_(role-playing_game)

>>48356359

Patriarchy

File: RPG_Ghostbusters_cover.jpg (75KB, 300x389px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 300x389px

>>48356359
It's been many years since I played it, but I remember this working fine (though Ghostbusters isn't really what I want to be playing as a campaign setting).

I found PDFs here: https://ghostbustersintern.com/media/ghostbusters-the-roleplaying-game/

>>48359280
Here's a link to a pretty good podcast of this game. The site also has an updated rules that streamline a lot of issues with the older versions.

http://nerdyshow.com/ghostbusters/

>>48358280
Real talk? Paul Fieg would make a pretty hilarious BBEG. The guy already looks like a wannabe Bond villain. Think a modern-day, living version of Ivo Shandor, but replace all his cool, collected chessmastering with smug elitism and childish tantrums when he inevitably fails.

>>48358280
Very good bait there, almost bit it. Seriously though, I didn't like the movie.

>>48356359
I ran a year-long Ghostbusters campaign using a Savage Worlds conversion. We didn't use the conversion exclusively (as our campaign was redneck-Ghostbuster themed), but it did help.

Savage Ghostbusters:
http://greywolf.critter.net/ghostbusters.htm

>>48361985
>Paul Feig as BBEG
I'm glad I am not the only one who thinks that. He'd probably ineffectually hit a soldier who failed him, who would play dead until they had to do something that mattered. Heck, he already has a villain backstory.

>>48358280
I don't understand why they didn't just re-use the crew from the cartoon.
It had a black guy and even a cripple.

>>48358915
>fan book
It's an official one.

Alright, I'm obviously gonna take some flack for this but: Fate. In fact, I think it's one of the few things Gate actually does well. The thing is, Fate isn't a generic system. They wish it was, but it's not. Fate is good at exactly one thing: making competent characters who would in other games be the same "class" different and cool by focusing on their personalities over stuff like gear or skill sets. The ghostbusters are, by and large, the same "class". Three nerdy science guys, maybe Winston isn't but close enough. They have the same access to gear, the same jumpsuits, the same everything. What makes them different is exactly what Fate is about: aspects. Spengler "Collects Spores, Molds, and Fungi". Venkman Isn't Phased By Anything. Winston is a Bluecollar Badass. Ray is Filled With Childlike Wonder. And so on. Stress tracks work perfect for ghost busting, and even better for injuring players, since it's less physical harm and more...stress. Some combination of being scared shitless and getting covered in horrible slime until you're taken out. Honestly, Fate was designed for a Ghostbusters game (I'd use the Atomic Robo version because modes are great and brainstorming is perfect, but Core is fine too.)

(this is also all true of Men in Black, the only OTHER game I think Fate is perfect for.)

>>48366743
How many of them were women?

>>48367035
One.
Also she was a witch and did cool stuff.

File: ghostbusters-finale.jpg (124KB, 960x741px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 960x741px

>>48367035
What they actually ACTUALLY should have done is the expanded universe from the comics. Yeah, I know that sounds retarded, but they were actually awesome. For a while they had a fantastic ghostbuster back up team that was: The goth chick who ran Egons occult books store, Janine, Scully from the X-Files, and a snarky d-bag who used to lead a failed ghostbuster ripoff called the...Ghostblasters, i think?

>>48367067
Irrelevant. Not enough.

We need all of the Ghost Busters to be women and all of the men to be portrayed as stupid or assholes and we need to defeat the Final Boss by shooting it in the dick.

Bonus point's for making the black woman a Shaniqua "Aw Hell Naw!" stereotype.

Because Grrrrrll Pawah!!

File: colorgbust.jpg (122KB, 600x797px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 600x797px

>>48358280
What? Wait, it's a remake of the original Ghostbusters?

Where's the gorrilla?

>>48367031
FATE generally works well if you're trying to emulate any sort of movie; it's meant to try and create more of the character-focused conflicts you see in traditional books and movies.

D&D is more sword and sorcery based and thus defaults to more man-vs-environment style stories.

File: GURPS G.png (14KB, 628x188px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 628x188px

>>48366770
No Anon, it's fan book. It's just made to look like the official ones.

>>48356359
WEG invented d6 with Ghostbusters. It was great! Still is good.

It may be just another franchise product for Ghostbusters, but for roleplaying it is a milestone. It went on to become much more popular with Star Wars, but Ghostbusters was the original.

>>48367095
Reminder that "Brazzers" is going to make a high budget porn that addresses all these complaints.

It's going to feature 4 women (one black, well spoken one with dark skin) who become ghost busters after the male ghostbuster team tells them they can't do it because they're women (for extra, actual Girl Power and a nod to "If you want more women in (x) then go do (x) instead of just bitching about it).

And they're all going to be sexy and in shape, like people you SHOULD look up to.

>>48367124
Far left.

>>48368272
And they're going to get dicks in all their holes.

>>48368304
Spoiler tags dude

>>48368272
Fuck it must be nice to be able to make high budget banter and make loads of money off it.

File: 1394628674296.png (96KB, 246x432px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 246x432px

>>48356359

File: do you suck dicks.jpg (97KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1280x720px

>>48368291

>>48368352
Am I wrong?

>>48368404
I never implied you were

>>48368419
but am I WRONG!?!

>>48367067
Also - Aubrey Plaza as Kylie Griffin.

You just made your money back on Ghostbusters.

>>48368272
I'm sadden that it will probably be better than the thing that it is being a parody of.

We have hit the low point, people. We have reached the point where the porn parody might be of better quality than the source material.

Weep for civilization is dead.

>>48368479
Genius.

>>>/co/84607899

You can read the lady ghostbusters arc while it's still up on /co/

>>48368528
I've never seen more damning evidence that this new Ghostbusters is just a cash-grab by people that couldn't be arsed to even do the most cursory google search of the setting.

No wonder it's an abortion.

>>48368528
The Haunted America arc from the comic is not only rad, but also great setup for a Ghostbusters campaign.

>>48367067
>Also she was a witch and did cool stuff.
If by "did cool stuff" you mean "was fucking awesome" and "gave lots of young boys their first boner", then yeah, she "did cool stuff".

>>48368272
But will it have Kylie?

>>48368621
She's the whole reason i have a soft spot for troubled or goth chicks.

>>48368644
It damn well better. They'd get every kid who ever saw that show's money and all the goth lovers to boot. If they didn't they'd be making a huge mistake.

>>48368644
She'll come in at the end and provide a tie-in to the sequel.

>>48368762
Wow. It was so shit it actually gave a kid cancer.

>>48368786
Nah the kid already had cancer. Just the sheer dissapointment actually made him flatline and required resuscitation.

>>48368813
Holy shit.

Just holy fucking shit.

I thought the "So bad it gave him cancer" was pushing shit into stupid territory.

But now I can, without fear of hyping anything up, say that the New Ghostbusters is so shit it almost killed a kid from sheer fucking disappointment.

Truth is stupider that reality.

But then someone in reality gave this film the green light so maybe not.

>>48368847
>Truth is stupider that reality.
Well great, now you've given me cancer, too.

>>48368867
Kim jon un actually announced that they discovered unicorn fossils in his country and that since its the only country with that claim to fame it shall be their national animal. Namely the fact no other unicorn LAIR has been found to exist elsewhere.
To question it has been stated to question North Korea's very honor and the honor of it's citizens which is to invite War.

>>48368867
Sorry. I meant to put quotation marks around either truth or reality.

>>48368906
What exactly could his shitty little nation do?

Refuse to trade with anyone?
send a couple of hundred half starved "soldiers" with out dated equipment on foot?
Threaten to send no-range nukes that half the time don't go off?
Show us another video of the Whitehouse getting nuked in PS1 era graphics?
Or my all time favourite continue to make empty boasts and threats about how this time they really mean it srsly U guiz!

>>48369445
Actually, they could cause some rather nasty global economic effects if they launched a first strike.
North Korea could never WIN against South Korea. But Seoul is within artillery range of the border, and the South is a major global economic player.

>>48369445
Probably get pissed, ask if russia is in or out, then throw functional briefcase nukes several places.
I honestly don't care about best korea but a war with russia is gonna get messy even if they'd ultimately lose.

World of Darkness.

>>48368490

You know, if the porn studio makes the investment, it could be a LOT better, become an instant must-have classic, and change the public's entire perception of porn.

The thing is, the porn parody doesnt uavr to be all that good. Just not terrible. The reboot is so shitty that even a crappy porn parody will be well received.

And yeah Western civilization is going away. That happened 8 years ago. Now it's just a matter of riding the decline.

>>48365203
>Heck, he already has a villain backstory.
I was going to write off this thread as mostly people bitching about their precious childhoods being ruined (and let's be real here, even if you like Ghostbusters and hate the new movie, Ghostbusters is actually a pretty big franchise and only, like, the original movie was at all any good)...
... but go on.

I'm curious how a guy who makes "Girls are gross and dumb too!" comedies has a villain backstory.

>>48367093
>>48366743
You know, if they wanted to, they could still make the reboot a sequel. Just do what Ghostbusters 2 and all the cartoons did.
>Giant marshmallow man attacks New York
>No one remembers
>Statue of Liberty comes to life
>Just a prank
>Entire cartoon series
>Only four losers in Egon's class
Ghostbusters' world is populated by goldfish.

>>48369713
How did pirates do? Wasn't that a "big budget" porn?

>>48369598
Hunter the Vigil?

>>48369798

Lol never heard of it. I'm just spit balling.

Hell, can't we just use this thread and come up with our own outline for a script for a porn parody? Like the old /tg/. I bet we could do better than either the reboot or the porn parody.

>>48367124
dicks out for harambe lads

>>48369713
>>48368847
>>48368933
>73% Fresh from Critics
>60 on Metacritic
>3 1/2 Stars
>Second in the box office
>"Literally the worst movie ever" -- 4chan
Being someone who doesn't care about Ghostbusters is weird. Almost all the hate really does seem to fall into the camp of "they're changing my precious thing" or "they're changing my precious thing by making it all girls".
I honestly get the feeling most of you haven't seen the movie at all.

>>48369804
>>48369598
While normally I'd suggest WoD for everything, and Vigil doubly so, you'd have to basically make up the proton packs and all that for yourself. I actually did that once, but I can't find it. Something like the Stream dealing damage to ghosts and draining their Essence, with the open trap creating the Resonant Condition to encourage ghosts to go into it. And you could probably change the frequency to deal with other things, like Angels or Spirits.

>>48369797
>Ghostbusters' world is populated by goldfish.
They probably share a world with the MIB and Dresden.

>>48369924
I honestly thought it was just a shitty movie. I don't have a fanboy love for ghostbusters but i recall it being decent.
Beyond that it just sort of felt like bad SNL shit with ghostbusters as the backdrop. The shitty editing didn't help and neither did the actors. And before you go "yer jus a mysogony!" i honestly don't care that they're women they just plain weren't funny and they were chosen for being comedians. All and all it was a crap movie and i honestly believe all the hate it got merely popularized it which easily explains its "success".

>>48369924
>thousands of people can't be wrong and/or lying!
Look, mate - there is a lot to complain about the new Ghostbusters, but I'll be brief.
The old Ghostbusters mixed comedy with actually interesting and very eldritch action. There were smart and scary and risque moments (remember the whole scene where the girl turns into Zuul? Shit is CASH) in the old Ghostbusters, and, yes, it had its funny moments, but the comedy didn't overshadow the plot.
The cast was great, the acting was great etc. - it was an instant classic.

The new Ghostbusters is a low-brow cliche comedy. Badly written jokes and absolutely pants-on-head retarded acting absolutely destroy whatever pretense it has to be the "New!" Ghostbusters.

Ghostbusters isn't supposed to be a comedy first, even if comedy elements are essential to the Ghostbusters experience. It's about a group of mundane people fighting supernatural. It can get grim, it can get dark and it can get legitimately spooky even if the overall tone stays lighthearted.
The new movie completely fails to realize that, even though comics and the cartoons did it first and did it RIGHT.

>>48356416
Ah, but does it have -4 STR for female ghostbusters?

>>48369924
Audience scores and the box office tell a much better story than the critics.
Especially since the vast majority are damning it via faint praise because it's the best they can come up with

>>48370003
>>thousands of people can't be wrong and/or lying!
But can't YOU also be wrong and/or lying?
Also, I've seen the old Ghostbusters. The comedy did overshadow the plot, and as several nerdy retro reviewers will point out, the villain was actually in the right and the Ghostbusters are dicks. Also, Venkman is kind of rapey and an asshole. And, really just a bad friend.

>>48369993
But the original Ghostbusters also felt like an SNL movie.

>>48370253
57% is far from "worst movie ever", and nerds on the internet usually care more about the critics than the audience (otherwise we can talk about the 87% that Transformers has from audiences, to the 57% from critics). It doesn't help that this is a movie where a lot of the "Audience" throwing out ratings haven't seen it. Women also tend to rate the movie higher.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men-are-sabotaging-the-online-reviews-of-tv-shows-aimed-at-women/

>>48369978
Hey now. In Dresden the closest thing to a supernatural reveal before Changes is the tape of Murphy taking out the Werewolf, and that keeps getting brought up even though some mysterious force managed to delete it from the internet or something. Everything else has basically been able to be treated as a terrorist attack. No one was even around for the Darkhallow. Nothing for people to forget.

Plus, that series has a minor theme of "people ignore what's right in front of them if given a 'nicer' alternative".

File: 1445438886158723534.jpg (294KB, 560x748px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 560x748px

>>48369924
It is a bad movie with terrible writing that adds nothing whatsoever to the original film. Its ratings are being bolstered by shills who are absolutely terrified of the utter failure that the movie has already been because they hedged their gay identity politics on a bad horse.

This is important: The film is a failure. They set artificially low goals to try and hide this fact, but the truth is that Ghostbusters needs to make 500 million dollars in order to justify a sequel, and it isn't even going to make its budget back at the rate it's going.
This has as much to do with the fact that China doesn't like portraying ghosts in film as it does that it's flopping in the USA, but it can be attributed to their ineptitude either way.

This coupled with the spiteful, bitter attitude that the film itself takes against the original films' fanbase makes it basically the most evil and hypocritical product of Hollywood since John Lennon's Imagine. Though, unlike that loathsome, Godless communist Lennon, Feig is probably not going to be shot and die like a bitch, crying for his mother.
This is unfortunate, but we will have to settle for the end of his career instead.

>>48370378
>Its ratings are being bolstered by shills
But the ratings are also being brought down by shills.
>This is important: The film is a failure.
Anon, it opened second in the box office. Although, yeah, the China thing is likely to be a problem.
The movie doesn't seem to be spiteful to the original film's fanbase, just people like you, who argue that it's all about identity politics.

Which, again: even if what you're saying was true, that still doesn't make this the war crime that the internet makes it out to be. There have been more bad entries in the Ghostbusters franchise than good ones. No one complained about X-Treem Ghostbusters (although I'll concede that despite as RADICAL and 90s as that was, it had some good bits, too).

>>48358280
Have another reply.
Congrats on being the first troll to almost get me in 6 months.

>>48370618
It opened second in the box offices to a children's cartoon that had come out three weeks prior. It isn't a successful movie.

It's politically motivated garbage and it is selling like politically motivated garbage. I don't care about the other ghostbusters, because nobody told me than I had to like Ghostbusters II or be sexist.

Now this liberal shit is selling like a lead balloon. It fills me with untold joy to imagine the Jews behind this weeping over their enormous deficit of gentile gold.

>>48370618
Different anon. Main issue is they predicted the minimum for opening would be $60m. It's sitting just above $46m and isn't making any headway in overseas markets. Thats not even a third of its production costs let alone coming close to what it needs for actual profit.
Beyond that all that have seen it and been questioned about it rate it from Eh to Bad. The only people who actually praise it are sadly social justice types which isn't helping its image or critics who all seem to have copypasted responses about it that don't actually say anything beyond "go see it yourself". By all accounts its terrible from the comedy to the acting right down to how it was edited. It's just plain not a good movie and that was before comparing it to the original ghostbuster which in all things was damn good for the time it played.
Saw it once on my own and was forced to watch it a second time and both times i just wanted to go do something else as it was completely unengaging. I'm not saying its an absolute disaster either just that it felt more like a shitty indie film with poor writing rather than what was supposed to be this series starting reboot blockbuster.

>>48370370
>as several nerdy retro reviewers will point out
In a desperate attempt to get a laugh by aping the Death Star contractor scene from Clerks. Because most of them are the kind of dipshits who forget the part of that scene where the roofer shoots the whole concept down.
>the villain was actually in the right
Yes, pulling the plug on a complex machine you don't understand because of bureaucratic bullshit while the guy who built it DIRECTLY TELLS YOU a sudden loss of power could be very, very bad, is totally "in the right".
>Venkman is kind of rapey
Oh, right, 21st century definitions, if you flirt with someone it makes you "rapey".
>and an asshole
Dude's SUPPOSED to be an asshole. That's his entire character.
>>48370618
>No one complained about X-Treem Ghostbusters
There also wasn't this rigged narrative of "If you don't like our work then you're just a sexist!" there.

Remember kids, if you didn't like that shitty film then you are a sexist misogynistic retard.

>>48369865

I love this idea.

OK so the mundane villain has to be a womyn's studies professor and activist. She can be a typical twiggy big red crybully type, trying to use protests and picketing to close down the ghostbusters. She identifies as being a woman of color despite being 100% white. She replaces the EPA guy in the first film. Since this is porn, we can have a scene where she's using her position to coerce her hottest students into sex. Maybe have a past where she flunked Winston for not being willing to do some weird-sounding sex act that we never get around to describing, and also keeps saying racist things while accusing everyone else of racism.

The supernatural plot can be almost the same, but let's replace the marshmellow man with a giant dildo or something. Rewatch the scene in the original movie and imagine the substitution and you'll see where I'm going. Rick Moranis and Sigourney Weavers's characters don't change much, but their sex scene at the climax will be longer, much more explicit, and include doggy style and/or anal.

The main four ghostbusters:

Egon will be a nerdy lesbian, kind of a masculine kind of hot. Basically the same.

Ray will be more of a bisexual hippie chick, kind of a manic pixie dream girl. She'll be spouting sciencey stuff as everyone gets into her pants. I picture her spouting exposition excitedly in an extreme closeup, and then zooming out and someone's fucking her.

Venkman will be the sexy, cynical, manipulative charlatan. Basically the standard sleazy porn chick you see in every movie. Also bi, and gets off on seducing basically everybody.

Winston will be their barista. Maybe she got fired after refusing to provide social justice counseling to her coffee shop patrons per company policy. She majored in womyn's studies and so basically has no marketable skills but makes really good coffee. It'll turn out that she's very smart and competent once she learns something real. Discovers she's straight at the end.

>>48370689
Coming out second is still coming out second.
And "its a cast of women" isn't some "politically motivated garbage" any more than the rest of Paul Feig's girls farting comedies. Wasn't it Bill Murray's idea to do a female lead Ghostbusters in the first place?

>>48370811
I've seen several people praise it who aren't SJW types. Hell, people on my Facebook have said its a good movie. And, yeah, I honestly do think that if it was a male cast it would probably get the same crowd as all the other dumb comedies. It's not like all the reviews have been glowing and perfect anyway. Even the best reviews I've seen have been pointing out that it could have been a lot better. Hell, even the SJWs complaining about the internet's misogyny (which you're stupid if you think isn't a major factor in people's hate for it) often say that it's mediocre.

I'm not trying to convince you that it's the best thing ever.
I'm just pointing out that if you think it's the WORST thing ever, you're a whiny pissbaby.

>>48370965
Anon, he does a lot more than flirt. And several of the people hating on the movie are clearly sexist.
Also, the dickless villain is right in that the Ghostbusters are fucking around with shit they barely understand.

>>48370370
>the villain was actually in the right and the Ghostbusters are dicks.

The whole point of the movie is that these small businessmen are doing the right thing and that the stupid self-important government bully was wrong. That what the GBs and their customers do is between them, especially since later it turned out that they were right.

Oh, and back in the 80's you could ask someone out and it wasn't "rapey", it was called flirting. By all means tell me where anybody raped anyone in the original ghostbusters. Hell, there wasn't even rape in the NYC prison. Maybe the demons possessing dana and rick moranis's characters.... who Venkman was defending them from until the EPA showed up.

>>48370378
>It is a bad movie with terrible writing that adds nothing whatsoever to the original film. Its ratings are being bolstered by shills who are absolutely terrified of the utter failure that the movie has already been because they hedged their gay identity politics on a bad horse.

It says a lot about how even its supporters know it sucks that even before the film opened they were playing the blame game about why audiences are so sexist that the movie failed. It's just a flat-out bad movie and they're playing damage control.

>>48370156
>implying female ghostbusters are canon

>>48370967
The very next post >>48371019 basically starts out with "DAE hate SJWs?"
Whether all the hate for the movie is based on sexism or not, arguing that no one who hates the movie is hating it out of sexism is fucking blind as fuck.

>>48371090
>The whole point of the movie is that these small businessmen are doing the right thing and that the stupid self-important government bully was wrong.
Goddamned environmental regulations keeping down those JOB CREATORS!

>ask someone out
Did you even watch the movie? Venkman does some pretty unethical shit. Like try to sleep with his students, which I'm pretty sure was not kosher even in the 80s.
>It says a lot about how even its supporters know it sucks that even before the film opened they were playing the blame game about why audiences are so sexist that the movie failed
Anon, they're probably already making a sequel and there IS a ridiculous amount of hate for the movie based entirely on sexism.

I think one of the problems is that the original Ghostbusters boasted an incredible cast with incredible writing behind it, and trying to live up to that is going to be insane no matter how good your film is.

I haven't seen the movie, and didn't even know it came out, so I've got no dog in the fight.

>>48371144
>if I just phrase my response correctly, the trolls will HAVE to agree with me!
Just close the thread, anon.

>>48371075
I haven't had a chance to see it, since I've been busy with some medical shit
From what I've been told there's a significant amount of bodily humor, at least at the start. I've also heard that the actors break charaxter regularly, almost as if they were being forced to improv or something. On the upside I heard the black woman is actually the best character of the four, and outside of the commercial scenes isn't the shitty stereotype she was made out to be

>>48371090
>By all means tell me where anybody raped anyone in the original ghostbusters.

Lots of people miss that Venkmen just apparently had enough downer medications on-hand for his date that he could sedate Weaver's character while she was possessed by a demon. He was probably a little too far, but on the other hand it's the subtle details like that that made his character legitimately interesting, too.

>Anon, they're probably already making a sequel and there IS a ridiculous amount of hate for the movie based entirely on sexism.

Eh, they're getting a sequel before the movie even came out. Sony's been talking franchise since the first trailers came out.

And I think that the sexism crowd might exist, bit it's smaller than the GB team wants it to be - Most of the hate for the movie came from poor trailers showcasing shitty parts of the movie and their absolutely bonkers media campaign that insulted people on twitter and tried to shame anyone who criticized the movie.

>>48371144
They previously stated they'd need around $500m profit to even attempt a sequel. They demanded it be a blockbuster from the beginning and its not even made back what they spent in the expected timeframe, not even by half.

>>48371319
Eh. Its like those "black moments" are a catch phrase. I wouldn't say she's the best out of the 4 either just that the other 3 seemed to be phoning it in, all of them seemed to be doing that.

>>48371357

Nor will it due to how you can't show films with Ghosts in them in China.

Frankly for that reason alone I'm fucking amazed this ever got greenlit to begin with. I mean, the chinese market is huge right now, numerous studios have inserted whole new scenes into their films just to pander to them. Who the fuck thought pitching a film that legally can't be shown there was a good idea?

>>48371019

Janine will be Jim, the wide-eyed office intern. He's got a crush on Egon. (Yes we'll change all the names. Later.)

The uniforms will remain the same. They have a phone app that pages them and they throw on their overalls immediately, so a running joke will be that you never know what they have underneath them. Let's have a nice zipper down the front, and a tighter fit.

So the basic plot is that they are university researchers who try to join a ghost busting team and are basically told that they can't cut it because they're girls. So far, so SJW. Then they try to open up their own business, and we segue back into the small business plotline of the original movie. Eventually, one of them says or does something that somebody considers sexist/racist/whatever, and that's when the SJW villain shows up. She'll keep protesting and picketing, trying to shut them down. Maybe peering into a window during a few sex scenes.

Basically, the SJWs are just as bad as the sexists because they ARE sexist. Plus whereas the men won't let them into their club, the sjws are actively fighting to drag the successful women down.

GB is a small business movie first, a ghost film second. So they have money problems, legal problems, permitting problems, maybe an EPA problem as a nod to the original. Plus competition from the other (original) team. So venkman's solution is to sexy themselves up. At that point, you switch to the sexier uniforms. This IS porn, after all.

>>48371090
>The whole point of the movie is that these small businessmen are doing the right thing and that the stupid self-important government bully was wrong.

That may be the point, but do remember that the Ghostbusters are carting around, in their own words, unlicensed nuclear accelerators. A lot of their equipment is straight up dangerous if it malfunctions and the EPA totally have a right to investigate that, particularly when they're storing both radioactive material and ghosts in the middle of New York. The storage facility was not designed to be safely shut down but had a single lever to do so and was clearly not designed for the event of massive failure powering it down, the consequence of which would be "like dropping a bomb on the city". In fact having just rewatched that scene I'm thinking from their conversation it's odds to evens they built a fucking nuclear reactor of some description down there.

Anything else aside there is NO good reason beyond convenience to build that in the middle of a city.

>>48371144
>Whether all the hate for the movie is based on sexism or not, arguing that no one who hates the movie is hating it out of sexism is fucking blind as fuck.

It's a weird one, I know for a fact there are some people who hate it because of sexism but I also know personally of quite a few who hated the look of it and aren't watching it because that trailer was just awful. I'm in the second group.

>>48369535
>Suitcase nuke

I don't think you truly appreciate just how out-of-date their nuclear tech is. I don't think you could move their current nuclear weapons in a pick-up truck, let alone a briefcase. They're barely past "Manhattan project" level sophistication.

>>48369713

Ghostlusters. C'mon, it's be great. Akroyd might even get on board, he's the original ghost blowjob guy anyway.

>>48371479
Also, to add to that, Peck originally looks in to them because he's concerned that they've done something dangerous and that's his job (and spoiler alert: they have) but has the misfortune to encounter, not reasonable Spengler or friendly Stantz, but dickhead Venkmann. Of course he takes it personally, Venkmann's taking the piss out of him whilst they do the spectral equivalent of dumping toxic waste in the middle of New York.

>>48371454
I can only hope someone somewhere is taking notes for the re-reboot 30-40 years from now because I would repeatedly watch this.

Certainly over the shit we got.

File: image.jpg (291KB, 2048x1042px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 2048x1042px

>>48369924
>>73% Fresh from Critics
Yes, yes well done critics, well done,
HOWEVER

>>48368404
>>48368424

Yes

>>48371501
Well yeah except they have actual suitcase nukes. We know they do undisputably. The issue they current have is they haven't miniaturized it safely so the force of rocket launches actually kills it.

>>48358280
I really don't understand this shit. If they had to make an all girl remake why did the not make at least one of those chicks hot? Why did it have to be the most unattractive women they could find?

>>48371685
Because all women are beautiful despite exterior looks.

>>48371685
Because hot people shouldn't love the way they are or be considered role models.

Only landwhales and the fuglies are permitted to be the good guys in a propped and progressive society. Otherwise it's obviously just fan service.

>>48371737
>>48371685
The thing I'm more miffed about is - where are the dude characters? Why the all-girl cast at all?
And if the all-girl cast - why not include classic characters?
Where's goddamn Janine? Where's that occult chick Ray liked from comic books?

>>48371791
They have a male character-the secretary. Also he's hot.

>>48371791
Because GIRLPOWA!
It's because they're retarded and wanted the dumbfuck new generation to love their movie purely based on the fact that it's a full female cast of "strong wimminz who don't need no man".

>>48371617

You don't need a rocket to launch a suitcase nuke, and if you can build one small enough to fit into a suitcase, you can engineer one strong enough to survive liftoff.

>>48371791
But Anon, there were plenty of male characters in that film.

Their characters ran all the way from stupid to incompetent all the way to arseholes.

Surely you can't be saying that strong independent women needed them on their team are you? Because that would be sexist.

Also nobody liked the comics and anyone saying they did is a lying patriarchal shitlord.

>>48371075
>Coming out second is still coming out second.
Isn't that because there's no real blockbuster release this week?

Losing to a 3 week old children's cartoon is a pretty bad showing as a fresh sumer blockbuster movie

>>48371865
I think the half in the bag hacks said it best when they asked why they are making a girl power movie from ghostbusters when ghostbusters is the least macho movie and being a dude had the smallest impact.

>>48371454

I figure in a 90 minute porn movie you can fit 46 minutes of sex scenes. We can finesse that because some scenes will be both plot and porn at the same time (like having Ray give plot exposition while being fucked). Two 10 minute scenes, four five minute scenes, and then four "90 second to fap" eyecandy scenes.

So ten sex scenes total.

Venkman using the psychic test to score a hot college guy.

Ray being plowed over a table while talking about ghost plot exposition and coming up with the idea to start their own business.

Venkman gets past the EPA official. I'm guessing with a blowjob. Next scene, she marches in with a piece of paper and declares, "I got our emissions permit! Ray, could you handle the zoning board?" Tosses her a bottle of lube.

Venkman gets slimed, give some real meaning to "I feel so funky". Maybe a facial? Not an actual sex scene, but it should have some strong sexy overtones. Maybe switch this to Egon?

SJW professor taking advantage of one or more of her students.

When they run out of petty cash, instead of chinese food they get through a bottle of whiskey and then have an orgy.

Winston and Ray, while talking.

When the gatekeeper meets the keymaster. Male-female, straight sex w/ possible anal. Dana and Louis turn into hellhounds at the end of the scene.

Prison scene. Egon and a prison guard have sex so they can get a meeting with the mayor.

During the big fight at the end, Ray and Winston distract the gateway demon by seducing her so that Venkman and Egon can do... whatever it is to kill the giant dildo rampaging through new york.

Closing bonus scene of celebrations. Dana and Venkman fuck-- after louis she's off men for good. Winston and the male receptionist: she'll climax and say "I think I'm straight!" after insisting that she's gay or bi the whole film. Ray and... somebody... still talking spacey science shit while someone fucks her. Egon and a vibrator. Roll this over the credits, so it doesn't really count.

>>48371558

And remember studios use sockpuppet accounts to goose the fan ratings.

>>48371558
Also don't forget that RT counts "3/5" as Fresh.

>>48371939
So do Ghostbros, anon.

>>48372006
>2016
>still not understanding how RT works
That's only true for audiences. Critics themselves decide if their review is fresh or rotten.

>>48372010
Proofs?

Fucking hell guys, you're missing the important part.

We should be trying to convince them to do an Extreme Ghostbusters movie with Kylie Griffon in it.

>>48371685
Kristin Wiig is cute as fuck though. I'd go there.

>>48371548

Lol thanks! Hell, the way porn gets filmed, they could take this whole plot right off /tg/ and then film the whole thing and have it on store shelves by the end of August.

It follows closely the personalities, themes, and plot points of the original. Updated for modern issues.

The main issue is finding people who are decent actors AND good looking AND up for porn. That can't be all that hard these days. You need a hippie chick type (ray), a tall thin serious androgynous type (egon), a standard busty sexually aggressive porn star type (venkman), and a pretty, young-looking, alt-culture black woman (winston).

You need an overweight SJW type, someone who can be the shrieking villain like Walter Peck was in the original-- except also physically disgusting, too. Janine should be a standard male porn star, someone who's a good actor and can be entertaining and distinctive despite the bit part (much as annie potts was). Louis should be nerdy and weird like Rick Moranis was-- that makes the sex scene with dana all the funnier. Dana needs to be a tightly wound corporate executive type, she'll be straight for most of the movie so Venkman trying to seduce her will be funny and unsuccessful at first.

>>48372097
>>48372182

OK, so in the porn parody I'm outlining I'm still using the names of the original team. That's just for clarity while we write it so everyone is on the same page. By all means let's rename the Egon character Kylie as a homage to the original. We can even make her a goth if you want.

>>48371095
They are canon, it's the hell that people who who have died along the way wanting to see a new Ghostbusters went in because they didn't deserve a real sequel

We all live in that hell

>>48371319
It's not like the original didn't have bodily humour.
Also, I've heard the one who looks like a cyberpunk character is the best.
She's also the one I like the best based entirely on costuming alone, which is all that really matters.

>>48371331
There's also the fact that he abuses his position as a teacher to sleep with students. It's what he's doing when we're introduced to him.

>>48371357
Anon, you don't really need a box office wonder to make a sequel. There are shitty movies that did poorly that have sequels. Hell, Homefront is a shitty game that just got a shitty sequel.

>>48371479
>It's a weird one, I know for a fact there are some people who hate it because of sexism but I also know personally of quite a few who hated the look of it and aren't watching it because that trailer was just awful. I'm in the second group.
I like the look and like that they're all chicks. I just think only two of them are funny. I actually liked the trailer, and thought the plot idea was a good one. I know that in the actual movie they don't go anywhere with it, though.

Also, Ghostbusters really is a pro-Right "businesses don't need to bother with regulations, fuck anyone who tells you otherwise" Reagan era movie.

>>48371558
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/
Anon, why do I get the impression you screenshotted that before the movie was even released?

>>48371791
So you haven't seen the movie and clearly know nothing about it (the fact that Thor is their secretary is played up repeatedly in marketing), but you're still bitching about it?

>>48371685
Why would they need to be hot? The originals weren't hot. I honestly can't tell who in this thread is a troll and who's an actual idiot.

>>48373662
I'm just assuming you're both and calling it at that.

>>48373662
>So you haven't seen the movie and clearly know nothing about it, but you're still bitching about it?
Welcome to 2/3rds of the reviews.

>>48373662
Let me guess, the main cast constantly fawns over how hot their secretary is?
If you say yes, that means they made a male character hot and that's it, he's just a hot thing for the women to stare at. You know, that thing that if it's a cast of dudes staring at a hot chick people cry about how it's damaging to women's identity issues or whatever the fucktarded term is nowadays.
Meaning either A) They're doing it on purpose to flip the script on "malecentric movies", or B) They're hypocritical cunts.

>>48374044
But isn't you complaining about that also hypocritical?
How is option A even a problem for you?

File: 2016-06-06-10-11-44.png (311KB, 526x472px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 526x472px

Well, one of my players has a Jaeriko weapons Smith named Tracey

>>48374081
I can't help but notice you dodged his questioning.
P.S. They do anon. He's legit eye candy right down to the "library keeper" stereo type he's dressed up as and they blatantly mention and reference that fact.
For the idiot anon thats dodging and goalpost moving: only ever saw that ad pointing out how lulzfunny it was that he was the clerk in all of 2 theatre ads and never on TV so its easy to miss.

>>48374246
Anon, it's easy to dodge a question when you're unable to form a coherent sentence. Thor is hired because he's pretty, yes, and he's very dumb, yes. I don't think this is as big a deal as you think it is, because there's this thing called "cultural context" that makes "pretty but dumb guy" not the same as "bimbo eye candy".

>>48369797
>Only the original movie was good
>the second was actually good but everyone gives it shit because it's not the first so a perfectly good movie gets ignored due to the unforgivable crim of 'not being as good as the first.'
>The cartoon series 'Real ghostbusters' was actually pretty great until Execs felt it didn't appeal enough to kids and forced slimer into the spotlight (so like, two seasons of a decent cartoon show?)
>Real Ghostbusters is notable if only for being a spinoff with EXTREME branding that's actually surprisingly good and makes decent use of DIVERSITY casting (though the hispanic guy gets hit pretty hard by the status quo hammer)
>A long running IDW comic of medium to high quality, other comics from other publishers, Amerimanga (or was it actual manga...? It's so hard to tell these days)

There's a ton of ghostbusters content brozef. A lot of it is pretty good.

>>48374304
Right....

>>48374360
They're downplaying cause its not fitting their narrative. Just ignore them and report every post like i have.

>>48374360
>>48374386
I feel like you're giving things way too much credit.
But then again, I feel like people give the original Ghostbusters way too much credit.

>>48374524
I feel like you aren't actually a fan of the movie or of any of the content produced and just feel like fucking with people who enjoy those things but dislike the new movie because it's bluntly a bad product and try to play up the quality of the new movie by dismissing the quality of everything that came before without actually sampling it.

>>48371331
Eh, they're getting a sequel before the movie even came out. Sony's been talking franchise since the first trailers came out

So was Amazing Spider Man and Fantastic Four. It's posturing because Sony hasn't had a hit in years.

>>48368762
Spawn Campers
>>48369445
North Korea, China's little autistic child
>>48370003
This, ever since it came out I always thought of it as a supernatural flick with snarky comedy sprinkled in.
>>48371075
1/10 for making me respond
>Wasn't it Bill Murray's idea to do a female lead Ghostbusters in the first place?
Murray's idea was Ghostbusters 2 failed and sucked due to producer/corporate meddling. His idea was to have nothing to do with another Ghostbusters show until Sony strong armed him into this POS.

>>48374386
Ghostbusters 2 has always been widely seen as a shitty cash-in. You're too emotional to think straight. Go away and calm down.

>>48374575
I'm not playing up the quality of the new movie. You're downplaying it, and likely haven't seen it.
I mean, I'm probably not going to like the movie. But I also didn't really care for the original Ghostbusters that much.
Except the XTREEM one, shut up And that one was still stupid and I only liked it as a kid in the 90s. I mean, it did that stupid Burger King Kids Club thing where there was a wheelchair kid who could somehow still do anything.
>>48374600
Anon, Ghostbusters was a comedy. It was marketed as a comedy. It was not "a supernatural flick with snarky comedy sprinkled in". you are outright lying.
And Bill Murray was not "strong armed".
You are creating a narrative more than anything else, while arguing that other people are creating a narrative.

>>48374600
less an autistic child more a rowboat full of rats that they've rowed out into the middle of a lake. Eventually the ship is going to sink and then the rats are going to swim to shore and china does NOT want those vermin on their hands.

So they patch up the ship and ignore the crazy fuck who lives on it and pretends to be kind of the rats because they weren't exactly thinking clearly when they started this entire experiment and now they want to put off dealing with the consequences as long as possible.

>>48371075
>fucking around with shit they barely understand
They pretty clearly understand it rather well. They told him EXACTLY what might happen if he unplugs the containment grid. He unplugs it, what they told him could happen happened, and THEN he started screeching about "things they don't understand" when his bureaucratic bullshit caused the apocalypse.

>>48374617
I told you earlier that I don't really care for either of the other media and that ghostbusters was a good movie for its time, not great but good. Beyond that this shitty new ghostbusters is just terrible across the board and to make it worse it has a good bit of the worst kind of political leanings this side of 1950.

>>48374664
They told him they didn't know what would happen.
And even if they do know what would happen, they had no permits and were putting nuclear reactors in the middle of NY and extorting people to solve their ghost problems.

>>48374667
Ghostbusters 2016 and Ghostbusters 2 are exactly the same.

>>48374630
yeah I saw it because my idiot friends dragged me to it. It was bad and the reasons for it have been outlined.

Your complaints about Extreme Ghostbusters showed you never even watched the show. That was an Adelaide Productions Cartoon and they have a track record of taking movie licenses and or bad ideas and making good shows out of them. (Godzilla the animated series, Men in Black, etc)

Garret, the ghostbuster in the wheelchair, was an excellent character. He's an enormous douchebag, a fairly typical jock stereotype and not many people like him for fairly obvious reasons. Over the course of the series he undergoes character development and you come to understand half his personality comes from the fact that he's wheelchair bound and he overcompensates.

On top of that there's more than a few episodes where the chair hinders him and the team or he gets knocked out of it.

But again, you're not interested in the quality of the original ghostbusters, material from it's numerous spinoffs, or people liking those things. You want to play up the quality of a bad movie because it makes nerds angry.

>>48374600
>until Sony strong armed him into this POS

You think Michael Lynton chased Bill around a golf course with a hatchet until he agreed to sleepwalk through a handful of scenes?

>>48374694
'Extorting' is a bit much. 'You pay me to do thing, if I get no pay I not do thing' they're exterminators who catch ghosts. You don't pay them they release the ghosts.

leans a little on forceful negotiations I suppose but just ask any architect about the cost cuts they have to make when unions with mob connections get involved.

getting leaned on is business as usual, especially in new york.

>>48374667
>and to make it worse it has a good bit of the worst kind of political leanings this side of 1950.

So it is all about the grills to you.

You could at least pretend that Ghostbusters is an integral part of your personality.

>>48374664
Kind of, but you also have to understand that he believes, perfectly reasonably I have to point out, that ghosts don't exist.

Given that revelation, the 'ghost containment unit' is probably at most a wiring hazard. They're yelling that it's going to be a bad idea but without being aware that it has a real function it sounds distinctly like they're simply raving and/or threatening him.

He's definitely a bit of an ass because he's written that way but it's perfectly reasonable to not listen to the con men and it's doubly reasonable to prosecute them after it gets shut down because they built the damn thing right there in the middle of the city.

>>48374694
>extorting people to solve their ghost problems
Yes, just like how an exterminator "extorts people to solve their pest problems", right?

>>48374809
>he believes, perfectly reasonably I have to point out, that ghosts don't exist
Because the DOZENS OF CLIENTS they've helped, who all corroborate their claims, aren't evidence at all.
His skepticism reaches the level of absurdity because it relies on an elaborate explanation involving "hallucinogens" and a "laser light show".

InSpectres is pretty fun. I played a game of it over IRC once.

It is essentially Ghostbusters where you play as a group who starts a franchise of the eponymous start up, and are called out on different jobs which all involve excorsizing ghosts. The simple itself is pretty simple and doesn't lose itself in the crunch. With a good group it can be your ideal system.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this thread was just created to stir up shit about the new movie.

>>48367031
Way I see it, you're someone who really gets Fate. Fate can be hacked and toolkitted to hell and back but its central mechanical concepts are the very reason it can never be fully generic.

>>48374869
>Because the DOZENS OF CLIENTS they've helped, who all corroborate their claims, aren't evidence at all.

Without wanting to go into any of the more contentious examples, you realise mediums in real life have a very loyal customer base right? As do homeopaths. If you busted a faith healer you'd get hundreds of people protesting it.

>His skepticism reaches the level of absurdity because it relies on an elaborate explanation involving "hallucinogens" and a "laser light show".

By that stage it is a little ridiculous, but that's the final stage and only occurs after the containment is shut down.

>>48374304
That's the same thing and you know it.

File: MMdocdc.jpg (62KB, 683x681px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 683x681px

>>48375069
Sorry. Forgot pic.

>>48375150
> Thinking He-man is unrealistic

We're all gonna make it bro.

>>48374765
"Leans a little forceful on negotiations" is extortion...
The hotel scene is literally extortion! You can even see when they up the price because they know they can get away with it.

>>48374804
I love how people try to couch it in hate for the "idealogy" or "politics" as opposed to hating it *because* it's a female led cast.

>>48374809
>Kind of, but you also have to understand that he believes, perfectly reasonably I have to point out, that ghosts don't exist.
Now, I'm all for pointing out that the Ghostbusters are in the wrong, but it's not really perfectly reasonable to believe ghosts don't exist. Ghosts exist in that setting and are visible and semicorporeal and shit. The fact that anyone doubts the Ghostbusters at all is ridiculous, and the fact that every sequel or spin off starts with "ghosts~? But those aren't real!" is mind boggling.

>>48374843
Orkin doesn't threaten to fill your house with cockroaches if you don't pay them. Orkin doesn't charge you after the job with no idea on how much it might cost. If Orkin did free the cockroaches, those cockroaches also wouldn't murder you because they're wayward spirits of the damned, cursed to forever wander the world in search of release.

>>48374869
He thinks they're frauds. People protect the people who've ripped them off all the time. There are people protecting Trump University.

>>48374923
>I have a sneaking suspicion that this thread was just created to stir up shit about the new movie.
Duh

>>48373614
>Anon, why do I get the impression you screenshotted that before the movie was even released?
Click on top critics you absolute mong also
>user reviews
>possible before movie is released
Good job showing you don't know how RT works

>>48375150
>What is a false equivalency?
Barbie is a man's unrealistic portrayal of women.
He-Man is a man's unrealistic portrayal of men.
Anon, He-Man is a sex symbol for gay men, not straight women.
Also, several people have pointed out that He-Man and Conan and such are unrealistic portrayals of men. People from places like 4chan and Reddit--who complain about feminists and only bring up things like He-Man as if there wasn't a false equivalency--tend to bitch about that, saying that there's nothing wrong with it.

Except that the hypermasculine ideal of He-Man--and Gears of War, for something slightly more contemporary--is actually just as bad, and anorexia isn't just something women face.

So your argument is stupid for like eight different reasons, but you pretend that you're clever and came up with some checkmate to feminism, despite the fact that feminists often dislike He-Man. Because this might surprise you, but feminists care about men, too.

But, again, arguments that He-Man isn't good result in Fox News and others talking about how feminists are trying to castrate and feminize men.

>>48375245
>Click on top critics you absolute mong
I'm still seeing a lot of tomatos, and it's still saying 73%.

>>48375321
>feminists care about men, too
Which is why they wilfully ignore the fact that men report being victims of rape in CDC statistics at an equal rate to women. Oh, right, the CDC doesn't call it rape, it calls it "being forced to penetrate" and classifies it under "other sexual assault".

>>48375150
Barbie is one of the most super-acomplished character ever. She has succeeded with everything she has set out to do. If she showed up in the He-man universe Skeletor would stop being any kind of problem if she decided to be an action heroine. She makes Batman seem like a joke when it comes to being best at everything.

File: m7h2v3V.jpg (354KB, 1091x700px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 1091x700px

>>48375321
If you say so.

>>48369924
I think the move can be summed up by the fact that both of Bill Murray's scenes are him sitting in a chair and reading his lines like the cheque has already gone through.

Ghostbusters are basically just protoshadowrunners.

Now for the real topic of the thread after the derailment:

The movie was fine. The lesbian engineer is my waifu now, and was actually pretty funny. The offensive black stereotype was pretty funny too. McCarthy and the Rachel from Friends lookalike were easily the worst parts of the movie. Thor was the funniest character in it, which is also funny in a metaway: the women were upstaged by a man.

Finally, the movie kind of falls apart in the third act due to really bad editing, and all the take thats aimed at people who discussed this movie on youtube and 4chan were bogging it down.

Still, a solid 7/10.

>>48375321
>but feminists care about men, too
Then the discussion would be about equality and human rights, no?
Feminism is a loaded word. It means a lot of different things to different people.
In the 60s there was a whole movement of men-hating lesbians that used the label. And these days - thanks to the internet - there is a forum for even the most niche group of people to instrumentalize language.

Just saying, if you are talking about feminism, as the word implies, the focus obviously is on women.
If you mean this whole shtick is about men and women we are talking about equality, which in itself is a pretty complex topic since you cannot treat men and women exactly the same and leave it at that, since both are different and that wouldn't be fair to either.
I've yet to see somebody make an intelligent point in these kind of internet arguments though, since the topic goes way beyond the scope of what is essentially a conversation between random people with no plan of action or data to back up their opinions.

Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about Ghostbusters.

File: image.jpg (440KB, 2048x1157px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 2048x1157px

>>48375321
>I'm still seeing a lot of tomatos, and it's still saying 73%.
Click the button circled in red, mong.

>>48375348
Except feminist groups have been trying to change the definition of rape so that those demographics can get the help they need.
Stop believing what 4chan and Reddit tells you. They want you to be divisive and hate people.

>>48375378
First off, most of those books are written by men (often pretending to be women, because those sell better). Second, most of those are not Conan looking motherfuckers. I mean, look at Yaoi. Hell, look at anything on DeviantArt actually drawn by women. Hell, look at Pinterest or the Ladyboners subreddit. Look at Orlando Bloom.
Hell, men don't really even like the Barbie look in the first place. The average porn star has a smaller bust than the average American.

>>48375591
>Then the discussion would be about equality and human rights, no?
Anon, it is. You act like every feminist is a man hating cartoon stereotype of a 70s bra burner. That's not true.
Feminism is a focus on women, yes, but you assume that it means a focus only on women period men can burn. No one is saying that men and women should be treated 100% exactly the same. No one is saying half the things you seem to believe, but plenty of people--on places like 4chan and Reddit and Youtube and Facebook--will say that people are saying them, and that they're saying them in great numbers, and that the barbarians are at the gate and the feminist SJW boogeyman is going to take over the world.
If you've yet to see anyone make an "intelligent point", then you're either ignoring them or willfully ignorant.

>Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about Ghostbusters.
You're also very, very naive if you believe that.

>>48375572
>The movie was fine. The lesbian engineer is my waifu now, and was actually pretty funny
Is she the Cyberpunk looking one?

>Shadowrunners as Ghostbusters
That is a neat idea and I want to see it done.

File: 1464763149934.jpg (43KB, 393x398px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 393x398px

>>48375695
>First off, most of those books are written by men

And bought by women.

>>48375695
Rightmost in the b8 picture is the lesbian engineer.

>>48375740
And bought by gay men.
>>48375757
Hot.
She already looks like a Shadowrun character.

>>48375695
>Except feminist groups have been trying to change the definition of rape so that those demographics can get the help they need.
Proofs?

>>48375775
>Romance novels are primarily bought by gay men
I see some bizzare claims and very little in the way to back that up

>>48375814
That's because he's desperately grasping at straws.

File: image.png (502KB, 550x818px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 550x818px

>>48375378
>not posting best edit

>>48375857
He's a bit beyond that.
He's just straight up denying facts and making shit up now. Pretty soon he'll begin calling everyone /pol/tards

>>48375481
>I don't like caddyshack
Kill yourself.

>>48375814
I didn't say primarily, just that they buy them. Women aren't really buying them for the covers, though. Again, when you go places where women are drawing their own men or talking about the guys they like, they're not Conan types.
I mean, chicks are going to dig Legolas over Conan.

>>48375787
http://www.feminist.org/nomoreexcuses/rapeisrape.asp
>The FBI’s definition of rape – "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will" -- was written more than 80 years ago and is the basis for their Uniform Crime Report statistics on rape. That definition excludes victims of forced anal or oral sex, rape with an object, statutory rape and male rape.1
Although the site proclaiming "we did it!" is sort of... reminds me of Bush. Sure, the definition was changed, but it could still be better, and it's not like law enforcement has gotten better at handling rape (although I'm possibly just being a cynic). Site might be old, too, I haven't looked through it in a while.

>>48375936
Jojo works because the characters are androgynous and fabulous enough to make everyone happy.
By happy, I mean in the pants.

>>48375936
Nothing weird here. Jojo is the straightest manly man's manga you will ever find.

>>48375972
>Jojo works because the characters are androgynous and fabulous enough to make everyone happy
And what about all the other femine men made by japs? You know, the stars of media primarily consumed by men, at least in the west? Are all those also exceptions?

>>48375972
>Yaoi is your basis of comparison
That is like saying that all of the lolicon crap that is made means that men are mainly attracted to little girls. Both are incredibly niche, and don't make sense when muscular men are the cover boys for books and magazines that are explicitly marketed towards women (50% of the population) rather than gay men (1% of the population).

>>48375972
>>48376000
The inner autist in me is flipping the fucking table over the incorrect usage of the term "strawman".

>>48376066
Your using logic at him/her/it.

It won't work.

>>48375972
>Chicks are going to dig Legolas over Conan
Dude, let's be real. Making generalized statements like that makes it hard to take you seriously.

>>48376066
It should be noted that women don't really loom at the covers of romance novels to determine whether they should buy them or not... Most of the time it's just a copy-pasta of the same model anyways, usually Fabio. The main male character in the book most often times doesn't even remotely fit the description of the cover model, except maybe hair coloration.

There is also a point to be made that the general preference for slash fiction does not tend to include super buff dudes.

>>48376090
If we're being real, then you should know there is far more slash fiction on the internets involving Legolas than there is for Conan.

>>48376003
Japan actually has different views on manliness. This is why in the American version of Neir, he's a 30 year old musclehead and in the Japanese version he's a prettyboy teenager. But Jojo is *very* different from most Japanese properties in that all the men are big and bulky and tall, but also effeminate and stylish.

>>48376066
Anon, I feel like you're looking at this in the wrong direction. Yaoi is for women, and the boys in Josei and shoujo manga are all very effeminate. You get something similar in the West, when women are drawing men (though women do have more variance in terms of their sexual attraction than men). As a rule, women are not the ones that big hunky barbarians are made for.
>don't make sense when muscular men are the cover boys for books and magazines that are explicitly marketed towards women (50% of the population) rather than gay men (1% of the population).
Anon, have you seen GQ and Men's Fitness? I legitimately thought they were gay porn when I first saw them.

>>48376075
And I'm using logic right back at you and it's not working.

>>48376090
But that's what the other people are doing as well. But fine, "as a general rule most women are more likely to be attracted to a body type like Legolas over a body type like Conan". Since I need to spell things out for you, because casual conversation must be carried out as if we are complete robots who are incapable of making minor leaps of logic.

>>48376128
Exactly. These are things marketed towards women but marketed BY MEN. When women are "marketing" to themselves, their desires are quite a bit different.
But people who say "Well Conan is shirtless and that never bothers me!" don't want to actually talk to women.

>>48376164
>Japan actually has different views on manliness.
And yet, tons of western men consume media that's based upon that view of manliness. Their are exceptions like nier, true, but that doesn't change the fact that the claim that men would be turned off by media depicting effeminate men is absolutely and demonstrably wrong

File: Sluts can die.png (32KB, 370x496px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 370x496px

>This thread will hit bump limit, with nothing related to tabletop games discussed in lieu of arguing over dumb movie

>>48369924
Anon, why is a flatout remake of a movie free from being judged as such?
When is the last time you saw a remake of a popular movie NOT get torn into for being a remake, especially when the director really isn't the right type, imo.
It's like having Michael Bay or Tim Burton direct Ghostbusters. Sure, it would have "Ghostbusters" on the title, but the feel and tone would be entirely different. It would be one of their usual movies with a Ghostbuster's shade of paint over it, and that was my running issue with the movie; it is Feig making one of his own movies, rather than a Ghostbusters movie. His hubris from the word go is evident in everything surrounding the movie.

>>48374044
Somewhat.
He IS eye candy, and the movie doesn't actually try to hide it.
I rolled my eyes at how the point of the secretary for the group was missed; the straight man to offset the wackiness of the group.

>>48376212
>that doesn't change the fact that the claim that men would be turned off by media depicting effeminate men is absolutely and demonstrably wrong
That's all well and good, but that's not the argument anyone was making, Anon.
I said that women generally aren't turned on by Conan. And, to be clear, this isn't me saying that no women are turned on by Conan. Just that... well, as this anon said >>48376152

>>48376254
It's not actually a flat out remake, though that's semantics.
Also, are you kidding me? I'd fucking love Tim Burton's Ghostbusters.

File: 1428626981243.jpg (321KB, 782x788px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 782x788px

>>48376235
With whats currently happening did you really expect different?

>>48376164
>Yaoi is for women
Again, yet another claim that seems to be entirely based on what is in your head. How are romance novels and their presentation not marketed to women? Surely the market research that hundreds of book and magazine publishers do to sell stuff to women isn't all somehow invalid, down to placing the novels in the lines at grocery stores and featuring heterosexual relationships rather than homsexual relationships, right? Or is there something that somehow overrides the consensus of experts? Meanwhile all of the pretty-boy male models in advertising are used to sell watches and clothes, watches and clothes for men and to men.

As people have pointed out, JoJo is explicitly published in a shounen (Japanese for boy's) magazine, as opposed to a shoujo one. Your own examples don't seem to hold much weight when JoJo is among the most popular shounen/seinen series currently.

>>48376254
>Anon, why is a flatout remake of a movie free from being judged as such?
Because the internet has a lot of unfuckable young males on it, who are very angry about their situation.

>When is the last time you saw a remake of a popular movie NOT get torn into for being a remake, especially when the director really isn't the right type, imo.
First Star Trek remake, Sherlock Holmes (both BBC and film, although the US version is shit), War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, True Grit...

>>48376334
>It's not actually a flat out remake
It ignores the fact that the rest of the movies exist.
It is as much a remake/reboot as Dredd and Total Recall were, so fuck your semantics.
>Tim Burton
I didn't say it wouldn't be good, I said the tone and feel of the movies would be entirely different. Ghostbusters is not a gothic setting, it was created to be a comedy vehicle carried by a triple A comedian cast written by one of the best comedy writers Hollywood has ever had.

>>48376331
He'a there as satire to the original, which had Annie Potts in her prime, and looking pretty damn fine in an 80's secretary getup. And while Ray and Peter weren't oggling over her, a lot od people forget the part where it's heavily implied that Egon was servicing her beneath her desk.

>>48376422
>First Star Trek remake,
Do you not know any trekkies? I know a handful, and they STILL bitch about the new series. The only difference is that the fanbase isn't as big.
>Sherlock Holmes (both BBC and film, although the US version is shit),
British media of the time, look it up.
>War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise,
Has been remade a dozen times, both movies and tv. Most people don't even remember the previous series.
>Invasion of the Body Snatchers,
Was shit before and after. You need a fanbase with loyalty to have backlash.
>True Grit...
Do you want to mention Red Dawn, too? Again, you need to be a GOOD movie, or at least have a cult following, to get remake backlash. Did you see the brujah that came up when Rocky Horror was rumored to be in the process of a remake?

>>48376355
Anon, I feel like you're missing the point. Also, your only example seems to be Jojo. Are you really telling me that women are into Conan? That the hypermasculine ideal is what women are into? That it's not something for men, despite appearing in media that is clearly for men?
Even those book covers aren't the kind of Conanesque He-Man characters that get thrown about as proof that men are just as sexualized.
And, again, Conan is made for men, not women. He-Man is a male power fantasy. Barbie and all those female superheroes that look like they're wearing bikinis and have waspish waists? Those are also drawn that way for boys and men. They're male sexual fantasies.
And, again, those book covers are marketed to women BY MEN.

When women are writing and drawing and doing their own thing for themselves, it's much more Legolas than Conan.

>>48376434
Dredd wasn't a remake, though. And thank God for that.

>>48376504
Anon, those things were not as big as this. The dissenters were not the majority.

>>48376422
>First Star Trek remake
Was shit on by trekkies.

>>48376467
I said nothing about reasonably attractive actors being cast, anon, you are being disingenuous.
In the original, she was not immune to comedic jabs (Harold Ramis had no issues with inclusion), and she was not typecast as a ditz or airhead. She was a NY yuppie, but not presented as being any less formidable or intelligent as the group who employed her, compared to the remake where the secretary pointedly is.
>Ray and Peter weren't oggling over her
Ray was not, his aversion to women was touched on in some jokes, and Venkman was a chronic womanizer.
>>48376533
>The dissenters were not the majority.
Nor are they in this case. Vocal internet minority is still a minority. Most fans of the original I knew who didn't care for the remake simply didn't go out and see the movie, rather than bash it online.

File: Deep choices.jpg (96KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x600px

>>48376533
There are a million examples of things drawn by women that aren't exactly pretty-boys with little in the way of muscles. Euphoria is an even more extreme example whose portrayal and treatment of women isn't exactly progressive, yet the head artist loves her job. And why would things marketed towards women be at all made for men despite being the far less profitable route? Is there some sort of conspiracy to inject male power fantasies everywhere? Kids toys are bought by parents, which makes sense, but anything with fabio on the cover certainly isn't bought by parents and given to their children. Companies and the experts who work for them are in it to sell to women. Legolas-type guys aren't all hated by men, especially when you the men who do create pretty-boy characters (Like JRR Tolkein himself).

>>48376504
>not know any trekkies? I know a handful, and they STILL bitch about the new series.
Yes, and the only ones who bitch, bitch about the second one (which is shit).

>Sherlock Holmes (both BBC and film, although the US version is shit),
>British media of the time, look it up.
And the opinions were retracted, at least for the tv show. The film is rubbish to the British, but nowhere near as bad as Elementary.

>>War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise,
>Has been remade a dozen times, both movies and tv.
Try again. Boon publication that went to early 1900s adaptation, which had a radio broadcast version, which THEN went to film in the 50s, had a tv version in the 70s, and was remade with Tom Cruise, as Tom Cruise.

>>Invasion of the Body Snatchers,
>Was shit before and after. You need a fanbase with loyalty to have backlash.
Now you're moving goalposts. It's had two remakes, enjoys a cult fanbase as a classic thriller both for it's 50s and 70s versions, AND the latest did alright even with Nicole's shitty fucking performance. Saying it's shit, is your subjective opinion.

>>True Grit...
>Do you want to mention Red Dawn, too? Again, you need to be a GOOD movie, or at least have a cult following, to get remake backlash.
I seriously hope you aren't implying that True Grit isn't a good movie, or that it doesn't have a following.


>Did you see the brujah that came up when Rocky Horror was rumored to be in the process of a remake?
Yes. Every film adaptation of Rocky Horror will be hated (at first), because it's tradition. Even the original Rocky Horror was blasted by all of the stage performers and fans when it came out.

First Star Trek remake = shit
Karl Urban Dredd = needs a sequel

>>48376533
>Are you really telling me that women are into Conan?
Yes, some are. I mean, Hafthor "Thor" Bjornson IS married.
A lot of your argument is predicated on this ideal that the classical Greek physique is for some reason repulsive to women when real life shows otherwise.
Maybe if we were talking about Chinese or Japanese society, where effeminate features and smooth bodies were a classic sign of wealth (and being able to afford leisure rather than bust your ass in the fields), but even in those societies, men of strength and capability (things that characters such as Conan epitomize) are still seen as worthy and desirable.

>>48376621
>Nor are they in this case. Vocal internet minority is still a minority.
I'm talking about here. Most people here weren't bitching about those things.

>>48376663
Yes, you can find a few examples that support your point. They are not the majority, though. Conan characters are not made for women, they're made for men to want to be. That's not even some sort of strange conspiracy theory. That's literally the truth. He-man was not made for women to see as a sex object or get off to. He was for boys to want to see because they want to be big and buff.
Women were not jilling off to Marcus Fenix.

I also never said prettyboys are hated by men. But especially in the West and America, you don't market prettyboys to men. Hell, its a pretty common criticism of anime that they're all androgynous boys.

>>48376745
Elementary is great you shut your hole. I really need to catch up on it.

>>48376803
I feel like you're missing the point. Again, it's not "no women like Conan types". It's "that body type is not meant to appeal to women, it's meant to appeal to men".
And, again, women in general will prefer the kind of male described in that Shortpack comic.

>>48376777
> Karl Urban Dredd = needs a sequel

Holy fuck yes.

>>48376777
I judge movies on the merit if they are still a good movie if you take away the context of sequels or remakes.

Star Trek remake = Is shit because people only gave it the time of day because it was Star Trek. If you took away that association it would just be a generic action flick in space that everyone would forget about in a year.

Karl Urban Dredd = Is a good action flick that would still be a good movie if it wasn't based on Judge Dredd. Because most people don't care about Judge Dredd and only know it from the cheesy Stalone movie they didn't give it the time of day.

>>48376883
>Elementary is great you shut your hole. I really need to catch up on it.
>Laughing Conan Doyalists.

>>48376928
>If you took away that association it would just be a generic action flick in space that everyone would forget about in a year.
That is true of literally every Star Trek movie, except The Motion Picture. That one is an excercise in the futility of staying awake.

>>48376777
>>48376890
It won't happen.
Just watch The Raid and The Raid 2.

>>48376928
Plenty of people not into Star Trek liked the remake. Me, for instance.
I mean, I didn't LOVE it or anything, but I watched it and had a good time.
>>48376946
I enjoyed it. I thought I'd hate it at first, but when I stopped comparing it to Sherlock (which I also need to catch up on, though I hear it sort of got worse) it was enjoyable, and I liked the Sherlock/Watson dynamic.
Speaking of Conan Doyle, though, there's a show called Houdini and Doyle. It's about Harry Houdini and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle solving mysteries.
Anyone know if its any good?

>>48376989
>Plenty of people not into Star Trek liked the remake. Me, for instance.
>I mean, I didn't LOVE it or anything, but I watched it and had a good time.

So do you ever get in the mood to watch it again like one of your favourite movies?

>>48376883
So all romance novels are made by men and made to cater towards male power fantasies (When they are marketed to women)? Let's assume for a second that most of the authors who write romance novels are men pretending to be women (Again, no evidence beyond what you have said). Why would they use promotional imagery of bodies that simply do not appeal to women? Why wouldn't they go the androgynous route in order to make more money? Surely male power fantasies could be indulged in at other times when someone is listening to heavy metal and appreciating its cover art, but why would the shoot themselves in the foot in every way possible by having the first thing a woman sees when she is looking at books in a drugstore be a man whose body doesn't appeal to her at all?

Face it, as much as you harp about women drawing masculine men being the minority, men who do what you claim they do are as much in the minority. The average woman isn't going to be looking for pretty boys.

>>48376883
>Most people here weren't bitching about those things.
You give 4chan of all places any credit for anything? If that was the case, I'd have left this site long ago.
>It's "that body type is not meant to appeal to women, it's meant to appeal to men"
And I'm telling you that is demonstratively false in real life when most of the competitors in World's Strongest Man competitions are in stable relationships. The only part of "appeal to men" that has any traction is that most guys aspire to strength, within and without, and so characters such as Conan are objects of admiration.
>>48376928
Then you should be able to accept that Ghostbusters really ain't that good of a movie. I mean, it's an action sci-fi comedy thriller that literally was supposed to be carried by some of the best actor comedians of the day, 2 of whom had to be replaced last minute (Belushi died, Murphy was making Beverly Hills Cop). That the second movie failed and every other attempt fizzled is telling; Ghostbusters was lightning in a bottle, it's success won't be repeated. The ONLY way it could even attempt to do so was by somehow bringing on the fanbase on top of new viewers (the Marvel movies accomplished this in spades with strong writers who understood the source material and had oversight). With Ramis dead and his scripts cast off for Fieg's work, that isn't going to happen ever. Sorta sad.

>>48370378
Jimmy?

>>48376928
>>48376989
I might of liked the ST remake if
1) JJ Abrams didn't start the film with "Lets blow up Vulcan LoL"
2) If I didn't read J. Michael Straczynski 2004 reboot treatment.

>>48377241
I just found the entire movie underwhelming. I'm not particularly nostalgic about Star Trek in general outside of the Next Generation, though.

>>48377020
So something has to be my favourite movie or it's utter garbage?

>>48377064
I feel like you're failing to grasp what I'm saying here.
And most of your argument in that post seems to stem from "why don't they do the thing that they will make them more money instead of doing the thing they think will make them more money" which puts a lot of faith into marketers.

But, yes, again, when women do things for themselves, they generally don't do Conan. I mean, shit, even those romance covers aren't He-Man bodytypes!

>>48377089
Anon, "successful and wealthy people have stable relationships" doesn't demonstrably prove anything. There are fat men in stable relationships. Conan is not designed to appeal to woman at all, except as an after thought at best. The men that men like and the men that women like are not the same. The existence of women who like those type of men isn't some kind of perfect counter. There are also men who like fat women, but you'd definitely argue that's not the norm.

Also, not only did Eddie Murphy not get to be in it, the black guy was originally supposed to be a competent airforce pilot. It was rewritten to be the straight man black guy who acts as chauffeur.

>>48377339
>So something has to be my favourite movie or it's utter garbage?

Nah, I'm just saying that I thought it was rather mediocre and I myself typically never rewatch mediocre movies unless they happen to be running on TV.

>>48377339
So you are saying that it is a coincidence, a mistake on the part of marketers, authors, publishers, and retailers for decades that >>48375378
exists? They may not be cartoons who are exaggerated to protray a warrior-man, but they are certainly much bulkier than they are lean, similar to the movie character who this entire argument started over. I'm sorry, but your male power fantasies are very much limited to ancient cartoons and the covers of music albums that some teenagers listen to, rather than the mainstream. Meanwhile the majority of these body types are seen in media by and for women, and no, some books drawn sold at an anime convention twice a year don't trump books sold in thousands of stores and portrayed in movies much higher budget than any "Yaoi" nonsense. If those body types were mainly marketed towards men then why are cartoon characters for boys today not rocking their six packs in bare view like they are in novels made for women?

>>48377339
>The men that men like and the men that women like are not the same. The existence of women who like those type of men isn't some kind of perfect counter.
Now you are fronting a Venus/Mars analogy.
>not only did Eddie Murphy not get to be in it
Conflict of interest. BHC and GB filmed around the same time, and he chose a one man star movie over an ensemble comedy cast where he wouldn't even appear until third act.
>>48377456
This.
Seriously, read the descriptions of the male protags in these books, or at least remember that the most successful writer in modern history is a woman who has written 100+ novels of this type.
You can't even say who writes the typical romance novel, because most are pen names by writers starting off. Hell, Ann Rice got her start writing erotic lit.

>>48376164
>all the men are big and bulky and tall
I see you haven't read part 7

>>48377339
>not only did Eddie Murphy not get to be in it
Wrong Eddie Murphy turned down the part

"Due to a clash with filming Beverley Hills Cop, Murphy had to back out",

The character got changed since Murphy the star left and Ernie Hudson the unknown replaced him.

>>48377534
>Now you are fronting a Venus/Mars analogy.
Are you denying that men and women like different body types?
>>48377456
Again, those body types are not really even the same as the ones I'm saying women aren't super into, and beyond that, yes, you're acting like marketing is 100% accurate and always right.
And how are the male power fantasies not what you see in current media? Sure, you see it less, but Gears of War isn't that old, with its hypermuscular refrigerators. Although I'm not saying it's bad that the musclemass male character is less common.

I'm just saying THAT KIND OF CHARACTER WAS NOT CREATED TO APPEAL TO WOMEN.
CONAN WAS NOT WRITTEN OR DRAWN FOR WOMEN.

"These romance novels are hunky!" doesn't address the point that I am making.
You will find more women making fan art of Legolas than Conan.
There's a reason guys like Loki and Bramblethorn Cabbagepatch are popular on Tumblr.

>>48377771
Did you read what I wrote wrong or what? I said "not only was Eddie Murphy not in it, this other thing also happened". You say "wrong" and then... agree with me?

>>48377947
>lalalala I can't hear you
>I know better than the professionals

File: 8b4f9a6158dec9ad57c4d08fd5fcc5aa.jpg (282KB, 640x907px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 640x907px

>>48378088
Motherfucker when was the last time you saw a boyband that looked like they were able to deadlift each other?
Jesus fucking Christ, do you ever talk to or even look at actual women in a way that would be conducive to having this conversation?

For fucks sake, the arguments have been "look, people on romance novel covers!" and "well bodybuilders have wives!"
Yeah, well, fat men also have wives. And so do skinny men. And all sorts of men. That's a shitty, asinine, ignorant argument. For fucks sake none of the men on those covers even look like Ahnuld or this Frank Franzetta motherfucker in the first place. Hell, it even assumes those covers are given tons of thought or marketing insight in the first place, as opposed to just churned out like butter.

I mean, shit, this line of conversation started over Chris Hemsworth, who's a far cry from the Ahnuld-esque gay porn looking character that would have played Thor if the Marvel movies were made in the 80s.

File: 1467068113491.jpg (68KB, 720x513px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 720x513px

>>48378293

>>48378317
Anon, I'm not butthurt, I'm frustrated that I'm talking to people who have never actually spoken to women. Go to places with women. Ask them. Talk to them about what they like.
Generally people who use the term butthurt are the ones who are butthurt.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think men like that hypermasculine bullshit anymore either.

>>48375481
they literally forced him to be in the movie on threat of lawsuit

>>48378483
How's that? I haven't really followed that shitshow so I don't really know the details aside from your typical making a bad remake to shit on people's childhood in exchange for guaranteed attention

>>48356359
Gurps Paranormal

>>48367035

Not important in the slightest.

>>48378659
>>48378483
Anon is misunderstanding things. They were worried they might have to, since they weren't sure whether or not he legally had a stake in the film anymore. This was also before they were going to remake it with a different cast.
>Back when Aykroyd was defending Murray’s decision, despite the rumors of Murray mocking scripts and writing a note to Aykroyd that said "no one wants to pay money to see fat, old men chasing ghosts" (which Aykroyd denies happening), Aykroyd always stuck up for Murray calling him a friend before a colleague.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Sony-Might-Sue-Bill-Murray-Playing-Ball-Ghostbusters-68651.html

He did cameo, and he did that thing he's apparently done any time he has a cameo, where he basically just ignores the script.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Here-What-Happened-Bill-Murray-Went-Off-Script-His-Ghostbusters-Cameo-119187.html

He did that cameo apparently because he was worried people would say that meant he hated it (as opposed to Star Trek's remake, where no one wanted Shatner around)
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Bill-Murray-Gives-His-Most-Honest-Reaction-Yet-Ghostbusters-Remake-135947.html
>I thought about it for a very long time. Like, many, many months. No, that’s not right. I was seriously thinking about this for years, really … It kept eating at me, and I really respect those girls. And then I started to feel like if I didn’t do this movie, maybe somebody would write a bad review or something, thinking there was some sort of disapproval [on my part].

>>48371885
>no real blockbuster release this week

Star Trek Beyond?

>>48374630

Too much estrogen in your diet. Quit eating so much soy.

>>48379044
There are so many more "estrogeny" comments in this thread. By me.
Plus, that's a myth.

On 4chan: "Ghostbusters is shit and everything is terrible this is literally the worst thing to happen to my childhood ever"
On Facebook: "My daughter really loved Ghostbusters but eBay scalpers bought up all of the action figure she wanted"

>>48375321
>but feminists care about men, too.

This is typically spouted by a male feminist, on the assumption that "when females take over, they'll remember *me* and I'll be elevated over all the other, awful men!"

Fuck. You're Paul Feig, aren't you?

>>48368762
>spawncamping.jpg

>>48379144

I chuckled.

>>48379144
>>48374600

Fuck me, someone already made the joke.

>>48356359
Spycraft. There is actually a ghost buster class.

>>48379128
Anon, the feminists aren't going to take over. You're too old to believe in the boogeyman.

>>48379217
Why does a game about spies have a ghostbuster class?

>>48371568
HOW!?!

The Ghostbusters reboot is such a sad clusterfuck of executive meddling and behind the scenes feuding, i feel sorry for the actress's involved (one of which was apparently so distressed by how it was going she cried between scenes) and for the cast of the original movies and really, just about everyone involved. Except for Feig and that Sony Bitch who was responsible

>>48380651
[Citation needed]

>>48367093
Is that Inspector Gadget wearing a Ghostbusters hat in the middle there?

>>48380868
There are videos on YouTube, Google it I'm too lazy and decrepit to defend a point i barely care about

>>48381376
I did google it. I found nothing but articles from last year or whenever about the internet crying about the Ghostbusters cast being women.

>>48378374
Asking women what they like leads to stuff like the new Ghostbusters movie. It's a bad idea.

>>48382387
Except that women seem to like the Ghostbusters movie.

>>48382531
Yes, that's what I said. It's a bad idea to care about what women think. They have bad taste.

>>48381437
Leslie Jones had a meltdown on Twitter. It's kind of sad, she really couldn't handle the bantz.

I mean at least one person in her life should have warned her about the internet and how to deal with that shit.

She had a whole freakout about fake twitter posts, actually posting them to her own twitter which made way more people see them.

You just have to shake your head.

>>48356359
You know, Paranoia would work fantastically.

>>48374115
Sure you mean Jokaero brother, I have not heard of these Jaeriko.

>>48378957
Yeah...the trailers look good so I'm gonna watch it. That's how I decide what film I want to see. If I like the trailer I go and see the movie, if I like the movie after the first viewing, i get it on DVD. But that's just my way of doing things.

>>48382564
But you also have bad tastes.

>>48382710
Anon, you're excusing harassment. Also, from what I've heard, she just retweeted everything and then Milo Yannapolis organized a campaign against her, got banned from twitter, and then Twitter was DDOSed.

>>48382972
I let other people watch things first and then listen to a handful of reviews and what my friends think. Then wait and pirate it.

>>48383030
Anon, learn to handle the bantz or don't become a public figure.

> It was the Evil Queer!

Okay, faggot. I'm sure they didn't just pick an eeeevul alt-right figure who is vocal on twitter to paint as the instigator.

Look, if you want to watch your mediocre at best movie crap all over the intent and spirit of the original so that you can virtue signal and hopefully get the validation that you apparently aren't able to do by actually creating anything of worth yourself, then go watch it.

But don't serve a shit sandwich and tell me I have to find it delicious.

>>48383147
Anon, no one is telling you anything is delicious. People are just telling you to calm your tits and stop acting like your childhood was ruined by the evil SJW boogeywomyn.

>>48383030
>Milo Yannapolis organized a campaign against her

What does that mean, exactly? Did he explicitly tell his followers, "harass this woman"? I've seen this claim repeated a lot, but never a screenshot of him saying anything like that.

>>48383168
The impression I get from all of this, is that it's like getting a call from an old friend who wants to visit, and when they arrive it's someone else wearing their skin and pretending to be them. You get upset at this, then someone else says it might be a feminist under your friend's skin. Then someone else says it's unfair to make a claim like that, and ultimately the event becomes about who's under there instead of about someone skinning your friend.

>>48383258
Anon, that is a ridiculous analogy. A remake is not skinning someone.

>>48383231
You act like doing more or less that isn't something he's done before.

>>48370965
>is totally "in the right".
An unauthorized organization should definitely not be allowed to run around with nuclear technology, was what he meant. Ghostbusters should have been overlooked.

>>48383274
He's written many provocative articles about individuals, sure, but has he ever told his readers to send harassing messages?

>>48375227
>I'm all for pointing out that the Ghostbusters are in the wrong, but it's not really perfectly reasonable to believe ghosts don't exist. Ghosts exist in that setting and are visible and semicorporeal and shit.
From several lines of dialogue in the first film it's implied that they're only really starting to come back in any real numbers, presumably whatever Goser is doing is starting to push at the barriers a little.

I will admit though that any sequel that starts on the premise that ghosts don't exist is simply stupid.

>>48371144
>Did you even watch the movie? Venkman does some pretty unethical shit. Like try to sleep with his students, which I'm pretty sure was not kosher even in the 80s.

Yeah...the '80s movies have a lot of moments like that which are now (and should have been) considered awful. I loved Sixteen Candles, but Long Duck Dong and Farmer Ted having sex with the drunk/out-of-it Caroline make it hard to watch nowadays.

>>48383452
Revenge of the nerds had a actual rape in it.

>>48383030
Sure I too have bad taste sometimes. But what I mean is that women like crap to a larger degree than men do. They have lower standards and seem to like (or dislike) things not based on the quality of said thing itself, but on other qualities associated with the thing. While, again, men do that too sometimes, women seem to do it more, and at the same time, be less aware of it.

>>48384321
That would explain the "It's ok, it' just a chick flick" method of quality control that goes on.

That and romcoms.

>>48384321
>>48384893
>While, again, men do that too sometimes, women seem to do it more, and at the same time, be less aware of it.
If you're going to gender this out your ass, I'm going to point to Transformers, so...

>>48386516
Oh, and Call of Duty. Gears of War. Hell, most AAA shooters. Most summer Blockbusters marketed on action and guns and badassness.