New Ghostbusters Trailer is out!

[Phillyman]

When I saw the still images I was not impressed, but now that we have a trailer.....I think this could be a decent addition to the franchise. Thoughts?

[miketheratguy]

Alright, elephant in the room right off the bat: I am absolutely not against a film with all-female leads (exhibit A: "The Descent", easily one of the best horror movies ever made). However I am against needless gimmick casting, and that's exactly what this project has always struck me as. It feels to me that rather than someone coming up with a new Ghostbusters movie because they had a great new idea for one, they simply said "hey, what if the Ghostbusters were women?" and came up with a movie from there. And it goes both ways - if someone resurrected the Alien franchise with a male lead I'd question the motives behind that choice as well. It's not the existence of an all-female Ghostbuster team that makes me roll my eyes, it's the seemingly arbitrary manner in which such a thing came to be.

Now, having said that, the trailer looks fine. Nothing particularly amazing, nothing particularly offensive. The mood and comedy seem a little subdued but the effects look decent. The characters seem likable enough with the few lines that they have. I'm sure that I'll see it at some point. Besides, it can't be worse than Ghostbusters II.

...And Kristen Wiig with brown hair and bangs is a babe.

[HowardBware]

Who wrote it?

[miketheratguy]

Who wrote it?

Katie Dippold, who wrote "The Heat".

[urko948]

Hey Ghostbusters II was fine. lol I didn't hate it. I'm not sure about this one I never could laugh at anything Melissa McCarthy does. That show Mike And Molly is probably one of the worst shows I've ever seen.

[HowardBware]

Now is this a sequel? Or a Reboot? or just exist in the same universe? The preview gives me the feeling that it is a Reboot of the original.

[urko948]

It's a reboot. An unnecessary reboot

[MisterXiado]

Instead of getting a physicist who doesn't discount the supernatural as malarky, an occult researcher, a paranormal psychiatrist/confidence man, and a blue collar worker for the sake of everyman relatability, it's four "funny" women in RED TEXT ON A WHITE BACKGROUND THE MOVIE. I don't care if the cast is all male, all female, unleaded, on ice, or all-natural with real sugar and half the fat of the leading brands. I want an interesting story, with good characters to work it, not tokenism and cheap humor to keep from alienating the double-digit IQ audience who doesn't know why there are 10 kind of people in the world if you only list one and another one. People cry about racism in casting, but what is this? An obese black woman acting "urban"? I prefer natural maple syrup on my french toast, so I also don't want Aunt Jemima in my movies. Is it too hard now, to have someone acting with dignity and giving off an air of intelligence and wit? Apparently. I mean, all we got in animation in the nineties was "only white people are allowed to be portrayed as idiots, and only if they're boys because boys are stupid, haw haw haw".

Almost funny how Sony is patrolling the comments on the trailer, and deleting anything that is less than sycophantic slavering over it. I assume they'll block the thumb ratings when the approval rating dips below 10%.

[miketheratguy]

Hey Ghostbusters II was fine. lol I didn't hate it. I'm not sure about this one I never could laugh at anything Melissa McCarthy does. That show Mike And Molly is probably one of the worst shows I've ever seen.

Lol Ghostbusters II was okay. I didn't hate it either. It just wasn't a very satisfying follow-up to the original.

I haven't ever laughed at anything that Melissa McCarthy has done, but I can't honestly say that I've ever seen anything that Melissa McCarthy has done...

[kitsunebi]

Not sure I know exactly where the comment above went wrong but I'm almost certain it jumped the rails at some point. (edit: dammit, not talking about yours, Mike. you posted while I was typing)

At any rate, I just want to point out that Ghostbusters is a comedy. ALL comedies are built around their casts, much more so than in other genres. When pitching a normal film, plot and characters are key. When pitching a comedy, the question of casting WILL come up, particularly in a remake/reboot where the basics of the story are already understood (small group in NY fights ghosts with proton packs and somebody inevitably gets covered in ectoplasm). So regardless of who was cast, it would seem to me completely normal for the actors to be considered first, and then the plot and dialog built up around them to cater to their talents. Such is the nature of comedy. No one pitches a comedy and only after the script is finished decides to cast Adam Sandler. They pitch an Adam Sandler "comedy" right from the start (yeah, I HAD to put that in sarcastic quotations.) And what some see as a gimmick is what others might consider a storytelling opportunity.

Mind you, I'm not defending the finished film at all. I didn't think the trailer was especially interesting (although the same could be said of the 1984 Ghostbusters trailer as well.) I'm just defending the process by which the movie was probably made as not being out of the ordinary for the genre (i.e. cast/characters/general idea before detailed plot/script.)

Edited March 4, 2016 by kitsunebi77

[HowardBware]

I could have gotten on board with an all dwarf Ghostbusters ensemble. Male or female.

[miketheratguy]

At any rate, I just want to point out that Ghostbusters is a comedy. ALL comedies are built around their casts, much more so than in other genres.I'm just defending the process by which the movie was probably made as not being out of the ordinary for the genre (i.e. cast/characters/general idea before detailed plot/script.)

This isn't just an ordinary movie or an original comedy though. This is a reboot of an existing (and wildly popular) franchise that has many clearly established elements, like you said - among them a cast of primarily male leads. I can get behind the logic of, say, seeking the talents of Steve Carrell and fashioning a movie around him (though I think that he's an example of how all comedies are NOT created from the cast up, as Evan Almighty was written before second choice Carrell was even approached). This case is different. To resurrect an existing, beloved, well-established blockbuster franchise with an entirely new cast is lame enough as it is. To do it by making sure that the cast is as radically different from the original as possible stinks of a conscious effort to make some kind of statement. Even if the movie WAS designed from the ground to serve as a vehicle for someone like Melissa McCarthy, I would argue that it was an irrelevant and wholly inappropriate misuse of the franchise.

If this film really was designed backwards - that it was created to showcase a cast rather than the cast being chosen to suit the film - why did all the leads wind up being women? Was that just a coincidence? Of course not, it was someone's conscious choice. If this movie was made from the cast up then someone, be it the writer, the director, the studio or all of the above, made the decision to make the cast entirely female. Why? And with the lone male star taking the role a receptionist, the same role previously occupied by a female, to boot? If this wasn't done to push someone's personal agenda, or to transparently further political correctness, or to make some kind of self-righteous stance for equality, then why was it done? How does the movie benefit from all-female leads? Does this mean that no male actors were good enough, or even considered? Then if so, once more: why? Again, it's not the idea of an all-female cast that bugs me. It's the gimmicky message-motivated logic behind the casting that bugs me. People watch a movie called "Ghostbusters" because they want to see ghosts being busted, not because they want to be educated about equality. If the film delivers such a message then it's just going to irritate the people who didn't become Ghostbusters fans so they could be preached to about political correctness. And if the film DOESN'T deliver such a message then the whole endeavor was a pointless exercise to begin with. I'm not inherently against genre subversion but that doesn't mean that I think it's always appropriate or even necessary, either.

I feel terrible for the cast of this movie. They didn't deserve the firestorm of controversy, none of this is (presumably) their fault. They're off visiting sick kids in hospitals while people bitch about the idea that women are starring in a franchise that they like. To which again, I say that that argument is missing the point. Those people shouldn't be complaining about women showing up in their beloved series, they should be asking whether their beloved series was brought back for the purpose of pushing someone's social agenda. I don't personally believe that this film was made to showcase the talents of a cast who, oh wow would ya look at that, just happened to all be female. I believe that this movie was made to showcase a cast that was specifically intended to be all female from the start. The former is cool, the latter not so much. One is earnest, the other has ulterior motives. For some movies it would be perfectly fine, for a movie like this it seems dubious. If you're not making the kind of film that requires a specific type of cast then maybe you shouldn't have gone out of your way to hire a specific type of cast. If you do want to hire a specific type of cast then maybe the movie that you craft around it should be something other than the reboot of Ghostbusters. Or do it, I guess, but then don't act surprised when a bunch of confused fans say "what the hell'd they do that for"?

If someone decided to remake Coming to America using nothing but white people I really have a hard time believing that people would say "It doesn't matter, it's a comedy. Plot and character are what's key".

[kitsunebi]

I want to preface this by saying that I have absolutely no emotional investment in this film or franchise. I like the original well enough, but I could care less about this or any other Ghostbusters reboot that ever gets made. So anything I say that sounds vitriolic or confrontational really isn't - I'm just making argument for the sake of defending a film that is getting torn down by a bunch of people who I genuinely believe aren't aware of how offensive towards women their passions are making them sound. It's ironic indeed, that many of the people shouting "agenda!" as you mention above are the only ones I see projecting an agenda upon the project (an anti-feminist one, however unintentional it may be). Anyway, on to my actual post:

This isn't just an ordinary movie or an original comedy though. This is a reboot of an existing (and wildly popular) franchise that has many clearly established elements, like you said - among them a cast of primarily male leads. I can get behind the logic of, say, seeking the talents of Steve Carrell and fashioning a movie around him (though I think that he's an example of how all comedies are NOT created from the cast up, as Evan Almighty was written before second choice Carrell was even approached). This case is different. To resurrect an existing, beloved, well-established blockbuster franchise with an entirely new cast is lame enough as it is. To do it by making sure that the cast is as radically different from the original as possible stinks of a conscious effort to make some kind of statement. Even if the movie WAS designed from the ground to serve as a vehicle for someone like Melissa McCarthy, I would argue that it was a wholly inappropriate use of the franchise.

Exactly, it's a reboot, which as I said, means that the pitch for the movie was likely focused on who could carry the film, not what the concept was, since that was already understood. I'm sure plenty of male actors WERE considered. Who can replace Bill Murray? Nobody, but that was the task before them. At some point, somebody probably got the idea, "what if they were women?" OK, so now, not only are you not having to replace Murray and the others with actors who will be directly compared and contrasted, but the nuances of how the characters will interact with each other and their world are going to be different. From a screenwriter's perspective, I'm sure it was one of the turning points of inspiration that let the project finally move out of the screenplay limbo it had been in for years. Imagine writing a Ghostbusters film with four male leads. Now imagine writing one with four female leads. If both versions are exactly the same in your mind, I'd say it's best you not try to make a career in screenwriting - the films will be very different, and I think that once they hit upon the idea, it sparked all kinds of fresh ideas (again, I'm not saying the finished product is good or bad, having never seen it.)

So you're right, the cast WAS intended to be all-female from the start. I'm not sure why you think that means it's trying to push an agenda. You lament the controversy the film has garnered while at the same time fanning the flames. Not to turn this into a feminist rant, but there shouldn't be a shitstorm of controversy just because someone decides they can tell an interesting story with female actors - and as far as I can see, that's the only thing being done here.

Also, nothing about Ghostbusters fundamentally dictates that the actors must be male, so that final point you made doesn't make any sense. The original GB isn't ABOUT men fighting ghosts, even if that's what happens in it. Coming to America is ABOUT a black man coming From Africa to New York and how he adapts to that culture. Although to be fair, you could easily make a similar movie using nothing but white actors - in fact, they already did, and called it Crocodile Dundee.

[miketheratguy]

I want to preface this by saying that I have absolutely no emotional investment in this film or franchise. I like the original well enough, but I could care less about this or any other Ghostbusters reboot that ever gets made. So anything I say that sounds vitriolic or confrontational really isn't - I'm just making argument for the sake of defending a film that is getting torn down by a bunch of people who I genuinely believe aren't aware of how offensive towards women their passions are making them sound. It's ironic indeed, that many of the people shouting "agenda!" as you mention above are the only ones I see projecting an agenda upon the project (an anti-feminist one, however unintentional it may be). Anyway, on to my actual post:

Exactly, it's a reboot, which as I said, means that the pitch for the movie was likely focused on who could carry the film, not what the concept was, since that was already understood. I'm sure plenty of male actors WERE considered. Who can replace Bill Murray? Nobody, but that was the task before them. At some point, somebody probably got the idea, "what if they were women?" OK, so now, not only are you not having to replace Murray and the others with actors who will be directly compared and contrasted, but the nuances of how the characters will interact with each other and their world are going to be different. From a screenwriter's perspective, I'm sure it was one of the turning points of inspiration that let the project finally move out of the screenplay limbo it had been in for years. Imagine writing a Ghostbusters film with four male leads. Now imagine writing one with four female leads. If both versions are exactly the same in your mind, I'd say it's best you not try to make a career in screenwriting - the films will be very different, and I think that once they hit upon the idea, it sparked all kinds of fresh ideas (again, I'm not saying the finished product is good or bad, having never seen it.)

So you're right, the cast WAS intended to be all-female from the start. I'm not sure why you think that means it's trying to push an agenda. You lament the controversy the film has garnered while at the same time fanning the flames. Not to turn this into a feminist rant, but there shouldn't be a shitstorm of controversy just because someone decides they can tell an interesting story with female actors - and as far as I can see, that's the only thing being done here.

Also, nothing about Ghostbusters fundamentally dictates that the actors must be male, so that final point you made doesn't make any sense. The original GB isn't ABOUT men fighting ghosts, even if that's what happens in it. Coming to America is ABOUT a black man coming From Africa to New York and how he adapts to that culture. Although to be fair, you could easily make a similar movie using nothing but white actors - in fact, they already did, and called it Crocodile Dundee.

You make some good points, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not fanning the flames, I'm posing perfectly reasonable questions. Namely, "For what reason did they decide that this story should be told with such a radically different cast? Implying that someone is anti-feminist (or, by extension, misogynist) for simply asking the question rather than accepting the information wholesale is like calling someone anti-patriotic for asking why America went to war with Iraq after September 11th. I can sympathize with a situation while still questioning certain aspects of it, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Nothing about GB fundamentally dictates that its cast be male, no. But following through with that logic, nothing about it fundamentally dictates that it's about fighting ghosts either. It's not a law, after all. Just because something is apparent doesn't mean that it has to remain static. Why not make the plot of a Ghostbusters reboot revolve around a mute Russian child who travels to Alaska to find the parents who abandoned him when he was born? If there's not going to be any standard of continuity from one film to the next, why stop at the cast? Why not change everything? And then, why not paint such a change as somehow progressive or noble heroic, by implication of the fact that the people who question it are being seen as "wrong"? Sure, plenty of people have made this a blatantly sexist argument by saying that the movie shouldn't star women, end of argument. I don't think that's the same as questioning the logic behind why such a choice was made.

For not having seen the film, I'm confused as to why you're so quick to defend it. You assert that casting the film with female leads will open the door to all kinds of fresh ideas. Sure it might. Then again it might not. They took the gamble, and I guess whether that gamble is successful will continue to be played out on the internet and, more importantly, the eventual box office receipts. So far though? Idunno. Did you see any great new ideas in the trailer? Is there any evidence yet to view this as an improvement? I never claimed that there would be absolutely no difference between an all male and all female cast, nor that the resulting films would be completely interchangeable. I would, however, stop short of presenting the idea as some kind of inventive concept that will automatically make for a superior film.

I anticipated that response to my mentioning of Coming to America which is exactly why I went ahead and used it. The cultural adaptation at the heart of the film doesn't derive form the main character's ethnicity, it derives from the fact that he's chosen to eschew the suffocating trappings of his royal lifestyle by traveling to a notoriously rugged and unglamorous city across the world. He's reacting to thugs, a crummy apartment, and the rigors of a menial job. He's not reacting to racism. As far as the specifics of the plot are affected it's all but incidental that the character is black. Change him from an African prince to an English one and you have the exact same film. The point is that regardless of all this, the characters are black. They could have been something else, but they weren't. It is what it is. So does someone have every right to come along and remake the movie using an all-white cast? Yep. Could the same story be told? Yep. Would it fundamentally change the events that transpire in the film? Nope.

Now, would it be suspicious or at least a little odd to make such an ostensibly unnecessary lateral change? Would it be wrong for a person to be given pause and choose to question the motives behind such a change? Is a person fanning some kind of hateful flames for openly wondering whether a change is made for personal interests instead of objective artistic merit? These are the things that we seem to be in disagreement about.

I don't take your comments personally. There's nothing wrong with having one's thoughts or opinions challenged, and right from the beginning of our interactions on this forum you've struck me as a good guy. It does bother me to be slightly nudged towards the misogynist column, especially since I feel that I've given the issue more rational thought than the spitefully entitled masses out there that you're lumping me in with, but I don't think that it's a personal slam. And remember that again, I'm not even particularly upset or emotional about the issue. I think the trailer looks fine, I'm not against giving the movie a chance. Like you, I ALSO believe that there shouldn't be a shitstorm of controversy just because someone decided to try to tell an interesting story with female actors (and to be fair, since we haven't seen the film, the ship has yet to sail on either of us making a call as to the success of that attempt). And, like you, I ALSO have no deep-seated personal affection for this franchise. I thought that the original was a lot of fun, the sequel was pretty dumb, and I've not played the recent video game. That's it, there you go. I'm not trying to bash the cast of this film (who, again, I have legitimate sympathy for) nor say that it's sacrilege for it to exist. I'm simply calling into question the mentality of changing something that didn't really need to be changed, just because someone could change it. At best, it's an amazingly satisfying change for the better. At worst, it's someone's personal agenda made manifest. Then again, maybe it's right in between: "pointless lateral move".

You don't have to agree. But if you can honestly tell me that this change is so organic, so understandable, that you never even questioned it - that not even once before the shitstorm began did you find yourself wondering why it was done - then what else could I say? You're less cynical than I am.

[kitsunebi]

I didn't mean to imply that you were misogynist in the least, so I apologize. I was just suggesting that people claiming that a female cast automatically equals a feminist agenda are going to be perceived by some as having an agenda of their own. As a reboot featuring completely new characters, it just doesn't seem necessary to even ask for any kind of justification for the change, as if the only way women should be allowed to play the parts is if there's a damn good reason for it, aside from the fact that, you know, they're people too.

And no, I know for a fact that changing the sex of the cast wasn't a quick decision to be made. A Ghostbusters sequel/reboot has been bandied about in Hollywood for years in development hell, and I would imagine 99% of that time, the cast being considered was male. For whatever reason, once the idea of a female cast was introduced, the film finally pushed forward and got made. Everything I know about Hollywood suggests that the ONLY reason a major studio signs off on a movie like this (i.e. NOT Oscar bait) is because they think it will make them money. So I assume that for whatever reason, they felt that this version more so than others presented to them in the past was going to be the most profitable. That sounds pretty cynical to me, but that's the practicality of the industry. If they thought that the inevitable controversy is what would spark ticket sales, then they may very well have made the decision based on factors other than the quality of the script before them. But it would still be a decision motivated by the dollar, not politics, in my opinion.

[urko948]

Lol Ghostbusters II was okay. I didn't hate it either. It just wasn't a very satisfying follow-up to the original.

I haven't ever laughed at anything that Melissa McCarthy has done, but I can't honestly say that I've ever seen anything that Melissa McCarthy has done...

Sequels are rarely as good as the originals. lol And honestly who has? I might have snickered at her in that Bridesmaids movie but she's always white trash characters from what I've seen. Like she's trying to be a female Chris Farley or something but that isn't working out for her too well.

[miketheratguy]

I didn't mean to imply that you were misogynist in the least, so I apologize. I was just suggesting that people claiming that a female cast automatically equals a feminist agenda are going to be perceived by some as having an agenda of their own. As a reboot featuring completely new characters, it just doesn't seem necessary to even ask for any kind of justification for the change, as if the only way women should be allowed to play the parts is if there's a damn good reason for it, aside from the fact that, you know, they're people too.

And no, I know for a fact that changing the sex of the cast wasn't a quick decision to be made. A Ghostbusters sequel/reboot has been bandied about in Hollywood for years in development hell, and I would imagine 99% of that time, the cast being considered was male. For whatever reason, once the idea of a female cast was introduced, the film finally pushed forward and got made. Everything I know about Hollywood suggests that the ONLY reason a major studio signs off on a movie like this (i.e. NOT Oscar bait) is because they think it will make them money. So I assume that for whatever reason, they felt that this version more so than others presented to them in the past was going to be the most profitable. That sounds pretty cynical to me, but that's the practicality of the industry. If they thought that the inevitable controversy is what would spark ticket sales, then they may very well have made the decision based on factors other than the quality of the script before them. But it would still be a decision motivated by the dollar, not politics, in my opinion.

Yes, I'm guessing that the new Ghostbusters movie was greenlit simply because it was viewed as potentially profitable, no doubt boosted by the inevitable merchandising deals. That doesn't make the movie unique. I do however believe that they honestly didn't expect any controversy whatsoever. Kristen Wiig herself publicly spoke of being unprepared and even "bummed" about it. That was the first thing that made me feel sorry for these women. The second thing, believe it or not, was in fact the collection of shots of the girls visiting sick kids in the hospital. They're in full costume. They look happy to be there. They're doing a wonderful thing that they didn't have to do. I don't remember it being sensationalized nor even publicized. I stumbled onto the pictures completely by accident. These women are just actresses trying to do their jobs and spending some of their time away from those jobs using their roles to bring joy to needy kids' lives. They're probably totally decent people. They don't deserve to be shit on just because they were hired to fill roles that were previously occupied by men. My beef, if you can call it that, was never with them.

The one thing you said that I'd still disagree with is "As a reboot featuring completely new characters, it just doesn't seem necessary to even ask for any kind of justification for the change". I would argue that, while it's not necessary or in any way mandatory, it seems like the respectful thing to do for the audience. If you're going to take a well-established 30 year-old property and reinvent it using new elements (whether they be the cast, the setting, the plot, etc.) that are drastically different from what fans have reasonably come to expect, I think that it's fair to provide some kind of explanation for the change. If they rebooted Friday the 13th (again) and had Jason Voorhees brandishing a gun, I think it would be reasonable of the fans to want an explanation. If they rebooted The Shawshank Redemption and made it a musical that took place in the present day, I think it would be reasonable of the fans to want an explanation. If they rebooted Gremlins and made the titular creatures multi-tentacled flipper beasts, I think it would be reasonable of the fans to want an explanation.

Here's where I agree with you: Generally speaking, an actress should be able to have a role in a film without that role requiring some kind of special explanation or justification. This is especially true if gender has no particular bearing on the story. What we disagree on is the implication that female casting is somehow above inquiry "because female". When a female is given a role (in this case I'm referring to the role of lead, not character) that was formerly filled by a male, I think it becomes a perfectly acceptable scenario to question. I would think that the majority of people would question it in the narrative sense, because suddenly throwing a bunch of female Ghostbusters on the screen without any explanation as to what happened to the male characters would demonstrate complete disregard for the audience (and, to be fair, there's no reason to doubt that such a narrative explanation will in fact be given in the film). If it makes sense to question changes like that in the fictional world, it should make just as much sense to question such a thing in the "real" world. People expect some degree of continuity. They become accustomed to something when it remains consistent throughout years of exposure. When something is suddenly different, it's only logical to ask why. If the answer seems inadequate (in this case I'm not personally aware of any explanation at all), well, naturally, many of the established fans are going to roll their eyes. A poor explanation (or lack thereof) wouldn't exactly encourage people about Jason's AK-47, it wouldn't make them any more thrilled to see the modern musical version of The Shawshank Redemption, and it wouldn't inspire confidence in the dramatic redesign of the Gremlins.

All this is to say that not all people resist the big change to Ghostbusters because they have something against women (though, I fully agree, it sure seems like the majority do). Some of them resist the big change to Ghostbusters because, well.... it's a big change to Ghostbusters.

The movie is what it is, it's going to earn whatever box office and critical praise it's going to earn, and mankind will slowly forget and move onto more important matters. I think that the only proper way for you and I to put a button on all of this is to go to the theater on opening day and engage in a bloody fistfight right in front of the screen, ensuring that EVERYONE goes home equally upset.

Except us, of course.

[kitsunebi]

OK, fair enough. I suppose the main difference in our points of view is that you see the casting of women to portray entirely new characters from those in the original film to be a more drastic decision than casting male actors to portray those characters, whereas to me, a completely new and different character is a completely new and different character, so I see no need to defend the change. And I also don't perceive any big change in the basic premise and tone of the film like those in your hypothetical examples. I actually just watched the trailer again and imagined male actors in their places, and it didn't change a single thing. Actually, doing so made me even more confident than ever that this movie will succeed or fail based on the quality of the story, not the sex of the characters.

[miketheratguy]

"You see the casting of women to portray entirely new characters from those in the original film to be a more drastic decision than casting male actors to portray those characters". Yes, but only because the first two films (and the cartoon, yada yada) were established with males as the leads. If this thread was about an all-male reboot of The Descent I'd be making the exact same argument for the other gender.

And the only example I gave that I feel would constitute a major change in premise and tone was the Shawshank one. I think that Jason wielding a gun and the Gremlins looking different are cosmetic changes on the same level as switching a cast from male to female.

I actually just watched the trailer again and imagined male actors in their places, and it didn't change a single thing.

I'm sure it didn't. That was my whole point.

[kitsunebi]

I'm sure it didn't. That was my whole point.

Ironically, mine as well, lol. What is the big deal about this, again?

[miketheratguy]

Ironically, mine as well, lol. What is the big deal about this, again?

Insect politics.

[kitsunebi]

I'd like to become the first insect politician.

I was an insect who dreamt the Ghostbusters were men...and loved it.

But now the dream is over.

[miketheratguy]

I'd like to become the first insect politician.

I was an insect who dreamt the Ghostbusters were men...and loved it.

But now the dream is over.

If you honestly quoted that without having to look it up, I'm impressed (points for the quality of the revision regardless).

If you had to cheat, I foresee in your future a podcast episode consisting of nothing but Howard and I peeing on The Curse of Monkey Island.

[kitsunebi]

Well then, I look forward to that episode, and am pleased that I helped bring it about. I'm curious to see how long your podcast will be though. Are you going to edit out all the parts where you're drinking gallons of Mountain Dew between the actual peeing?

[miketheratguy]

Well then, I look forward to that episode, and am pleased that I helped bring it about. I'm curious to see how long your podcast will be though. Are you going to edit out all the parts where you're drinking gallons of Mountain Dew between the actual peeing?

Ohhhh no. Live, raw, and unedited. In lieu of pulling the Gametron lever you'll get to hear me get taken to the emergency room. It'll be like "hold your wee for a Wii" but for art.