Soooo.... James "AVGN" Rolfe is in the news this week..

[FalloutJack]

So we're getting to the point where we're getting salty overy people getting salty over someone getting salty.

When will this wheel of sodium end.

Right here.


OT: I don't think I'll see it in theaters. I saw the original one in theaters for the anniversary, and I had Chinese food during the joke about said food representing the last of the petty cash. It doesn't get any better than that.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

I have no issue with people and their opinions but i really dont get why these trailers get more hate then say the BvS trailers. Maybe i just have more connection to dc then Ghostbusters but i saw nothing in the GB trailer as Batman asking if Superman bleeds or the Doomsday reveal.
And as to why GB3 never got made, it did as a video game. The movie never happened from what i understand because in a big part because Murray didn't care and I think a GB3 where Murray was half adding it would be worse then a movie with 4 McCarthy's.

People still had hope for BvS (Remember, people are still split on Man of Steel.), and that movie wasn't a remake of a beloved franchise where most of the focus is on an extreme shallow and pandering change. Plus, the trailers for that weren't so bad. At the very least they had the good sense to ignore the abomination that was Luthor in that movie and focus more on the action.

The Ghostbusters trailer however, both show humor that falls WELL below the standards of the first two films. (Most specifically, the vomit gag) not to mention the replacement for Winston is such a stereotype that it's almost painful to watch. Then you add in some painful dialog (Such as the characters stating that one of them knows more about Physics than anyone, almost word for word, which breaks the "Show, Don't Tell" rule of storytelling.) Ghosts that look like they came right out of the live action Scooby Doo movies, and on and ON and you have a recipe for "downvotes out the ass" as the AVGN would say.

Also, "a GB3 where Murray was half adding it would be worse then a movie with 4 McCarthy's"? You haven't seen many Murray movies have you? Half Ass is the man's default state of being. It's part of his charm.

 

[Vigormortis]

https://medium.com/@RachelBanks/misogynistic-mra-bob-chipman-cries-male-tears-over-all-female-ghostbusters-94f07f0870f6#.6ggug7sd1

At least MovieBob saved the day lol.

I...I don't...

What is this even?

This nonsense is spiraling so far down the rabbit hole it's become a meta-parody of itself.

I think I'm done. I'm out.

*grabs coat and heads for the door*

 

[Zontar]

Second, anyone arguing that Bill Murray was forced to cameo in the new Ghostbusters film by Sony is [http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/08/bill-murray-explains-why-he-decided-to-appear-in-the-new-ghostbusters-film/] completely [http://www.vulture.com/2015/08/bill-murray-on-why-he-did-ghostbusters-cameo.html] full [http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/bill-murray-details-ghostbusters-reboot-cameo-20150901] of [http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/31/bill-murray-ghostbusters-cameo] shit [http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Bill-Murray-Finally-Explains-Why-He-Kept-Passing-Ghostbusters-3-67711.html]. Seriously. [http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2015/08/31/heres-why-bill-murray-agreed-to-cameo-in-the-new-ghostbusters/77539924/] I mean, Murray spent decades rejecting Ghostbusters 3 scripts that didn't meet his standards, and we're supposed to believe that Sony forced his hand and made him be a part of this movie against his will? What the fuck are people who make this claim smoking?

So what you're saying is that the public statements made by Murey state one thing, so what he and Sony say when they think no one is looking [http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Sony-Might-Sue-Bill-Murray-Playing-Ball-Ghostbusters-68651.html] means nothing?

Sorry, but the only one full of shit here is Sony, no one else. There is no question [http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3324370/ghostbusters-shocker-cast-interest-leaked-sony-considered-suing-bill-murray/] on the matter: they threatened to sue [https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704].

The only real question is why no one seems to care about that fact.

Also, next time you're going to call me full of shit, have the decency to quote what I posted.

 

[Zontar]

[
So.. you're saying that Bill Murray was forced into cameoing in the new Ghostbusters film because Sony didn't have the legal merit to force him to cameo in the new Ghostbuster's film, according to your own source? You do realize that doesn't make any sense whatsoever, right?

I know it's 3am EST but I think you need to read over what I posted links to, because you evidently did not if you read a threat to take legal action as contradicting the observation that making such a threat is, in fact, making such a threat.

There is quite literally no question on the matter, Sony threatened to sue Murray to get him to cameo, he did not want to do it. That isn't up for debate at this point, what is is speculation as to why he never went public with it. Though given how it's all Hollywood politics, that alone is reason enough to explain it away.

 

[Zontar]

No, quite literally, from all three of the sources you posted, some fucking idiot suggested the laughable idea that they try to sue Murray into becoming part of the film, and they immediately recognized that this was a completely laughable and stupid idea and that if he wasn't going to willingly sign on, they should look for someone else instead.

Point out exactly where, in this email [https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704], the idea was rejected? Because the messages read as follows:

I think you are fine to stay out. Am sure len has it on his list for us to discuss at his 1-1 tomorrow

FYI, apparently AG has some ideas (Harrison, of course). I?m trying to stay out of the middle of this one but let me know if there?s anything you need me to do.

I have some names in mind but will wait until we speak with Leah.

In order to more fully evaluate our position if Bill Murray again declines to engage on ?Ghostbusters?, AG requested that we identify ?aggressive? litigation counsel with whom we can consult to evaluate our alternatives and strategize. [Harkening back to his prior employer, of course, raised the name of David Boies.]



Personally, while I?m fine with aggressive, I think we are in much worse shape if this goes public so seems to me we should look for someone who isn?t seeking the spotlight.



Can we discuss at some point soon to provide a suggestion or two?



Thanks.

From what is stated we can see this: Murray already declined being in the movie at least once (shows how badly he wanted to be in the remake), that legal action was being considers, and that the risk of exposure is acknowledged, but the tactic approved.

At no point is it either explicitly stated or implied that the idea was rejected.

 

[Zontar]

Point out exactly where, in this email, the idea was rejected?

Right here:

I think we are in much worse shape if this goes public so seems to me we should look for someone who isn't seeking the spotlight.

Not only that, but it doesn't confirm that Murray declined, it says IF he declines. Also, it never directly states to sue Murray, it suggests that they pursue alternatives and strategize in the case that he does decline.

That's what called "acknowledging risk", which is a part of business since everything is basically a risk vs. reward calculation where choices are made based on what maximized reward with the perceived least risk.

In fact the literal 6 words before that where an explicit statement of approval for the tactic:

Personally, while I'm fine with aggressive

Also, we DO know that Murray declined at least once with this part:

In order to more fully evaluate our position if Bill Murray again declines to engage on "Ghostbusters"

That is an explicit statement that he has declined at least once. While it's impossible to discern how many times he has done so, we know for a fact it's at least once.

While it's not made clear if Sony would have actually sued him if he called their bluff on the threat to do so, the fact that the threat was approved of and given his later going accepting to cameo in a movie he clearly wanted no part of, it's not only safe to assume they did make the threat but it would be unreasonable to imply otherwise given what is available to the public on the matter.

 

[Zontar]

Also, we DO know that Murray declined at least once with this part:

... Yes, he has a years long history of declining to do a Ghostbusters 3, because he had no obligation to be a part of any Ghostbusters project whatsoever if he did not desire to be.

Uh, that's not what was stated in the email, what was stated was his taking part in the remake being something he rejected. In fact Ghostbusters 3 was something he tried to have made. Hell the third movie effectively got made anyway since, along with using the entire original cast (Murray included) Ghostbusters: The Video Game was using the entire story idea for the third movie anyway.

"Personally, while I'm fine with aggressive, I think we are in much worse shape if this goes public so seems to me we should look for someone who isn't seeking the spotlight." is quite clearly saying "if this was a viable option, I would be all for pursuing it, but it isn't, because it would make us look terrible if we tried, so if he declines, let's just pursue some other option."

That's not at all what was being "clearly said".

 

[Zontar]

I mean, I only provided six separate sources that explained this to you.

So what you're saying is that someone who has been threatened with legal action unless he shows up in a movie he turned down being a part of at least once is supporting that movie? Well who the hell could have guessed that would happen?

Here's the thing about all your secondary sources: not a single one does a thing to disprove my primary source, nor does it change the fact that during the 90s he was openly in support of the idea of a third movie. Of course that's totally unrelated to the threat of legal action if he didn't play ball, that couldn't have possibly factored into the equation.

 

[sonofliber]

Or, you know, he knows Rolfe's history of being a histrionic manbaby with issues with women, and maybe you don't.

Can you post sources for this accusations?

 

[Chris Mosher]

People still had hope for BvS (Remember, people are still split on Man of Steel.), and that movie wasn't a remake of a beloved franchise where most of the focus is on an extreme shallow and pandering change. Plus, the trailers for that weren't so bad. At the very least they had the good sense to ignore the abomination that was Luthor in that movie and focus more on the action.

The Ghostbusters trailer however, both show humor that falls WELL below the standards of the first two films. (Most specifically, the vomit gag) not to mention the replacement for Winston is such a stereotype that it's almost painful to watch. Then you add in some painful dialog (Such as the characters stating that one of them knows more about Physics than anyone, almost word for word, which breaks the "Show, Don't Tell" rule of storytelling.) Ghosts that look like they came right out of the live action Scooby Doo movies, and on and ON and you have a recipe for "downvotes out the ass" as the AVGN would say.

Also, "a GB3 where Murray was half adding it would be worse then a movie with 4 McCarthy's"? You haven't seen many Murray movies have you? Half Ass is the man's default state of being. It's part of his charm.

Murray tends to play disaffected characters really well but i see difference between his performance in say Garfeild vs Lost in Translation. Also for the most part Murray just doesnt do movies he doesn't care about which is one of the biggest reasons we never saw GB3. If you have paid attention to the interviews there's been a whole lot of Murray stalling. The various parties are really polite about it but Murray not caring is clearly a major reason we never saw GB3.

I also dont think we were robbed of a great GB3 given the recent output of Reitmam and Aykroyd. I'll watch Bridesmaids or Spy before either No Strings Attached or My SuperEx Girlfriend if i am being honest. GB2 was a mediocre rehash of the first film. Its not as bad as its haters say but rewatched the movies a few months ago and GB2 just felt meh. I honestly think that Ghostbusters was such lightning in a bottle that I would rather they just let the series alone.

 

[StatusNil]

Personally, while I?m fine with aggressive, I think we are in much worse shape if this goes public so seems to me we should look for someone who isn?t seeking the spotlight.

It was literally something someone suggested that was immediately dismissed.

Looks like you're bolding the wrong part there. "I'm fine with being aggressive" seems to suggest that the writer is OK with legal action. But that's seen as risky, because "Sony scum forcing beloved Bill", so the thing is to try to keep the legal threat low key. Meaning, to use a lawyer who's not going to showboat about suing Bill Murray.

The other interpretation doesn't really make much sense. "We should look for someone who isn't seeking the spotlight" to do what? Act in a damn movie. How's that something that's not "seeking spotlight" by very definition? And if they're talking about making a cameo appearance, well, they got pretty much everyone relevant to this movie to appear, short of summoning the dead to play ghosts. So it's not a case of getting someone instead of Mr. Murray. They wanted everyone.

 

[Naldan]

And a video about how much this is in the news. To spare you my grammar, I'll just leave the link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A350vmvtnLs