Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
#4902183
JurorNo.2 wrote:You know, something else has been occurring to me. Feig all but said he wanted to portray Holtzmann as a gay character. And Feig also hinted the studio wasn't cool with broadcasting that. And who are some of the biggest fans of this movie and Holtzmann -- Tumblr girls.
Honestly, and maybe this might put me in a negative light, but I'm sorta happy with that move. However, while I do agree that Holtzmann is gay, there's something about not out right saying it that ... adds to her. It's human, in an interesting way, because she is still a sexual icon, but subtle and you're more focused on other elements to her personality.
Now I'm not playing the "homophobic" card, I think that label is used too often.


I certainly hope my point doesn't make some wave that card at me too.
But it goes back to what I was saying earlier that GB16 doesn't sexualize women in the traditional sense. I do think segments of the audience...weren't sure how to take it. What lesbians find attractive in women isn't always what straight men find attractive in women (same can often be said for gay men vs straight women, and what they find attractive in men).
I'm working on a web comic with the ATC team going on jobs, busting ghosts, and etc. And my co-writer/illustrator is one of those Tumblr girls. She's a Pansexual or an Asexual person, but really rejoices in the LGBTQ aspect of Holtzmann and "Holtzbert." I'm a straight heterosexual male who has mixed feelings towards LGBTQ, but I'm all for human rights, equality, and respecting people's life choices. Jillian is gay, I write with respect to that, (heck I got an idea with Gal Gadot being the character model for one story), but I also remember that she's not JUST that and not just the mad scientist trope, but a person and one who should be explored in different ways.
*NormalGamer* liked this
#4902185
GBPaulRivera wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:You know, something else has been occurring to me. Feig all but said he wanted to portray Holtzmann as a gay character. And Feig also hinted the studio wasn't cool with broadcasting that. And who are some of the biggest fans of this movie and Holtzmann -- Tumblr girls.
Honestly, and maybe this might put me in a negative light, but I'm sorta happy with that move. However, while I do agree that Holtzmann is gay, there's something about not out right saying it that ... adds to her. It's human, in an interesting way, because she is still a sexual icon, but subtle and you're more focused on other elements to her personality.
You're not being negative at all; This is pretty much how I see it, as well, and subtlety can go a long way regardless of whatever element a characters personality has (sexuality, ethnicity, etc.); overall, whether the element is explicit or not explicit, the key to a well-rounded character is 'balance'.
#4902192
Holtzmann works best as an androgynous character. Because the focus isn't about her sexuality but on personality, quirks and mind. And I know there are alot of "Holtzbert" shippers out there but the film established that Erin is verrrrrrry hetero. ("You're like a law suit waiting to happen"). Besides I think it would ruin the dynamic if suddenly 2 of the characters where in a relationship. It changes the motivations and tilts the group dynamic. The cartoons sort of explored this with Egon/Janine and Eduardo/Kylie but neither dominated the characters journeys or got in the way of story telling. Despite being the son of a gay man, I'm glad that Sony didn't allow Feig to out Holtzmann. Because all it would've done was add more fuel to the fire that was the shitstorm of 2016 and on a surface level, who cares? Does the fact that she's LGBTQ make her better at catching ghosts and building the equipment? Nope. Same goes if she was hetero. I've always gotten the impression (moreso in the comics than the film) that Yates and Holtzmann just didn't care about relationships. Yates' science was more important to her and Holtzmann is a "Peter Pan" type character that also has no interest or doesn't care about relationships. Her love is her equipment and ideas.
#4902294
DarkSpectre wrote:Holtzmann works best as an androgynous character. Because the focus isn't about her sexuality but on personality, quirks and mind. And I know there are alot of "Holtzbert" shippers out there but the film established that Erin is verrrrrrry hetero. ("You're like a law suit waiting to happen"). Besides I think it would ruin the dynamic if suddenly 2 of the characters where in a relationship. It changes the motivations and tilts the group dynamic. The cartoons sort of explored this with Egon/Janine and Eduardo/Kylie but neither dominated the characters journeys or got in the way of story telling. Despite being the son of a gay man, I'm glad that Sony didn't allow Feig to out Holtzmann. Because all it would've done was add more fuel to the fire that was the shitstorm of 2016 and on a surface level, who cares? Does the fact that she's LGBTQ make her better at catching ghosts and building the equipment? Nope. Same goes if she was hetero. I've always gotten the impression (moreso in the comics than the film) that Yates and Holtzmann just didn't care about relationships. Yates' science was more important to her and Holtzmann is a "Peter Pan" type character that also has no interest or doesn't care about relationships. Her love is her equipment and ideas.
YES. Thank you. With my comic series, this was a decision I had to speak with my friend/artist. She is a big fan of the Holtzbert, but I told her that doing this causes a change in the dynamic of the four Ghostbusters and focusing on that would put aside what we're here to see, and that is these funny people reacting to the supernatural and horror.

It's not odd for their to be romance. Sure Egon and Janine, but I think Eduardo and Kylie are a greater example. While Janine is a Ghostbuster, she's got a different dynamic to each character than being a part of the main team who are actively going out more often than her. Kylie and Eduardo, on the other hand do go out together to bust ghosts constantly, and so the romance while connecting doing the same thing really helps them develop. Yet, the fact is Holtzmann and Gilbert don't have that equilibrium because, as you said one is very hetero and one is homosexual, there is no natural buzz between them. It's more a Fan desire to see that, than the characters themselves. Also, I agree that Yates' is of that classic character type where there work and research are their true loves. Holtzmann too, but I'm sure she still blushes and finds certain ladies beautiful to want to date, but she is very much into her work too.

What I would like to see is Holtzmann reacting to men that Erin date since she could still have that underlying crush OR have formed a sisterly platonic connection with Erin.
#4902301
GBPaulRivera wrote:
DarkSpectre wrote:Holtzmann works best as an androgynous character. Because the focus isn't about her sexuality but on personality, quirks and mind. And I know there are alot of "Holtzbert" shippers out there but the film established that Erin is verrrrrrry hetero. ("You're like a law suit waiting to happen"). Besides I think it would ruin the dynamic if suddenly 2 of the characters where in a relationship. It changes the motivations and tilts the group dynamic. The cartoons sort of explored this with Egon/Janine and Eduardo/Kylie but neither dominated the characters journeys or got in the way of story telling. Despite being the son of a gay man, I'm glad that Sony didn't allow Feig to out Holtzmann. Because all it would've done was add more fuel to the fire that was the shitstorm of 2016 and on a surface level, who cares? Does the fact that she's LGBTQ make her better at catching ghosts and building the equipment? Nope. Same goes if she was hetero. I've always gotten the impression (moreso in the comics than the film) that Yates and Holtzmann just didn't care about relationships. Yates' science was more important to her and Holtzmann is a "Peter Pan" type character that also has no interest or doesn't care about relationships. Her love is her equipment and ideas.
YES. Thank you. With my comic series, this was a decision I had to speak with my friend/artist. She is a big fan of the Holtzbert, but I told her that doing this causes a change in the dynamic of the four Ghostbusters and focusing on that would put aside what we're here to see, and that is these funny people reacting to the supernatural and horror.

It's not odd for their to be romance. Sure Egon and Janine, but I think Eduardo and Kylie are a greater example. While Janine is a Ghostbuster, she's got a different dynamic to each character than being a part of the main team who are actively going out more often than her. Kylie and Eduardo, on the other hand do go out together to bust ghosts constantly, and so the romance while connecting doing the same thing really helps them develop. Yet, the fact is Holtzmann and Gilbert don't have that equilibrium because, as you said one is very hetero and one is homosexual, there is no natural buzz between them. It's more a Fan desire to see that, than the characters themselves. Also, I agree that Yates' is of that classic character type where there work and research are their true loves. Holtzmann too, but I'm sure she still blushes and finds certain ladies beautiful to want to date, but she is very much into her work too.

What I would like to see is Holtzmann reacting to men that Erin date since she could still have that underlying crush OR have formed a sisterly platonic connection with Erin.
@ *referring to bold*

For me, honestly, I always see them more as life partners or quaziplatonic partners than strictly as a romantic couple, even though some see it that way. I pretty much expanded my own knowledge about what relationships in general are beyond just the amatonorative which is why I would love to see more about other parings than sticking with just one paring.
#4911401
Commander_Jim wrote: December 6th, 2016, 3:45 pm I was only talking about the demographic changing thing because thats one of the most common responses to anyone who doesnt support this movie, that little girls like it (though thats something Im yet to actually witness in real life or anywhere other than Paul Feigs twitter feed) and we should be so ashamed for not, as you put it, "sharing our toys". Its all part of the same "You're a fanboy/misgynist if you dont like this movie" rhetoric.
Okay Jim, I've got something to show you that disproves the bullcaca you just spewed:

Image
-Link

Image
-Link

Image
-Link
Last edited by Kingpin on December 18th, 2018, 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.Reason: Fixed image links
GBPaulRivera liked this
#4911554
Ghostbusters (the original) is my favourite film of all time and i really enjoyed the 2016 reboot. Shame it wont get a sequel due to the backlash it got. I just took it for what it was, another entry into the ghostbusters universe as apposed to a sequel like Extreme Ghostbusters.
#4911557
Not to be "that guy" but 2 things.

You're STILL arguing about a mess of a movie with no structure to it going into 2019. Call me crazy, but all you're doing is stoking the flames of divide. If you liked it, cool, no reason to spew constant justifications.

Second, you're entire basis for argument is in fact an arbitrary made up internet meme that is as old and dated as the internet itself. Sure it was funny for a while, but the internet has no "bible" so to speak.

There's nothing productive happening in this thread anymore. The OP was a question posed to start a discussion on whether or not there was a divide along gender lines. That question was settled. What has happened as a result just divides the community more and more.

For those that like the 2016 movie: IT'S OKAY TO LIKE IT. You don't need permission to, you don't have to champion it, you don't have to convince other's. Enjoy it, go for it.

For those that hated it and you're still banging on it, well you need to stop and ignore it, and if you stop giving things this much attention, the money will dry up, the problem will correct itself.

For everyone else, stop talking over eachother.

As for my personal take, and you can take it or leave it, is that Gender Swapping a reboot only serves to politicize and divide a fanbase. It doesn't create anything new for the IP. When you hang a story on the fact that "Hey! The cast is all ____ now!" all you're doing is showing you have nothing creative to offer. If you want to make a good film, make a good film, or at least the best one you know how to. If you want to make something purely to politicize and claim it's more inclusive than ever, then you don't care about film making.

Case in point:

Ghostbusters has always been "inclusive". No one told anyone they couldn't be a Ghostbuster, anywhere, in the history of the IP, fan made franchises, or anything. Just because you don't see someone who looks like you on the screen doesn't mean you cant imagine yourself right there with them. That's what the imagination is for. It's why we go see movies - they feed that imagination. They give us an escape so we CAN go on that adventure with the characters on screen.

To think anything otherwise is a waste of energy, it does nothing for a discussion, and you're only creating an environment where others are uncomfortable being. So if you need to saber rattle only to discover you're alone, it's because you pushed others away.

Ghostbusters, all films and IPs really, should bring people together for the story and characters in that story.
#4911562
To be fair, regarding Ghostbusters is inclusive: Winstons role was halved and he wasn't on many posters, with the cartoon showing Janine in pink when she was in GB form, while later she was sexualized in GB2 and the cartoons to appeal to the fans.

I don't blame this on Ghostbusters, but on the times. Inclusive doesn't mean equal the further back you go.
GBPaulRivera liked this
#4911564
Why does anything have to be equal? We live in a world where things aren't fair. It's the nature of life. One day you can get up and have the best day ever, the next a plane could just fall on your head. Things are random. Doesn't mean people should try to idealize the world, but make the best of what life offers in the little time we have on this planet.
#4911568
Because for me it's fair. I'm raising the point because you state that inclusiveness should be enough because we live in an unfair world. I believe we live in an evolving world, for better or worse, and things like race and sex are slowly becoming less important factors. However, we are not there yet, but it's certainly possible to give equal chance regardless of race or sex. I know this is impossible with all jobs, but it should be possible in fanbases, writing and acting careers.

Why is this stirring a pot? I agree with most of your points, but want to point out that inclusiveness has had a different meaning throughout the years, with steps in the right and wrong directions, though we are getting there and becoming more aware of the faults in the past.
#4911571
Life isn't fair. We should all learn to let go of the things we don't have control over. That's the point of my last reply.

As for how it stirs the pot, think of it this way. Idealizing everything to our liking creates a situation where we're just trying to make the old like the movies we see. It trades healthy escapes for something where everyone is put into a position where no-one can handle reality. We see that now on an almost daily basis.

That environment spills out and becomes ideology which people attach themselves to. Then those ideologies spread with thanks to things like social media people get more entrenched in the ideal and it becomes weaponized. Something we continue to see more of. If you want proof of that, all you need to do is come through this thread.

Ghostbusters became weaponized against its own fandom because a very small group of people were picked out and touted as THE fandom, then it was used to divide and split us, those who enjoy the franchise so much as to costume it, do charity for, and enjoy something that was once pure. It was tainted by the battlecry to make everything fair.

I agree that we're nowhere near close to being in a perfect world, but the infighting and saber rattling isn't going to get us there, not is trying to force fairness. Doing either creates a world where the unfairness just becomes a different kind and the people who clamored for it become the ones who suffer most.
*NormalGamer* liked this
#4911572
Azurial wrote: December 28th, 2018, 3:54 pmGhostbusters has always been "inclusive". No one told anyone they couldn't be a Ghostbuster, anywhere, in the history of the IP, fan made franchises, or anything. Just because you don't see someone who looks like you on the screen doesn't mean you cant imagine yourself right there with them. That's what the imagination is for. It's why we go see movies - they feed that imagination. They give us an escape so we CAN go on that adventure with the characters on screen.
Azurial wrote: December 28th, 2018, 5:28 pm Why does anything have to be equal? We live in a world where things aren't fair. It's the nature of life. One day you can get up and have the best day ever, the next a plane could just fall on your head. Things are random. Doesn't mean people should try to idealize the world, but make the best of what life offers in the little time we have on this planet.
With respect, remarks analogous to that have been made for decades in response to people asking for things to be a bit more reflective of the current status quo. While the original film isn't outwardly excluding to some fans, it may not be as easily identifiable as some who aren't white or male. The 2016 film, for all it's flaws, gives female fans greater flexibility. Now, they don't have to dress up as a gender-flipped version of one of the 1984 Ghostbusters. They can be one of the 2016 Ghostbusters if they want to.

We acknowledge that not everything in life is fair or equal, but representation matters, be it women, people of colour, people who are LGBTQ+, or who aren't able-bodied. We're not trying to idealize the world, just make it more reflective of how diverse reality actually is.
Azurial wrote: December 28th, 2018, 5:40 pm Again, why does anything have to be equal? You're sidestepping the question posed. Why focus on something secondary when it serves no purpose other to stir the pot?
It only stirs the pot when somebody's got a problem with it.
Azurial wrote: December 28th, 2018, 6:25 pm It was tainted by the battlecry to make everything fair.
Respectfuly, no. It was tainted by a body of fans who got up in arms over the fact the new characters were women. Some of them were so steadfastly opposed to the decision that they went out of their way to make vile remarks about the director, actresses, and make horrendous remarks about kids in a children's hospital.

It wasn't tainted by a "battlecry to make everything fair", it was tainted by gatekeeping "fans" who didn't like a creative decision.
Alphagaia, Sav C, Razorgeist and 4 others liked this
#4911574
Kingpin wrote: December 28th, 2018, 7:02 pm With respect, remarks analogous to that have been made for decades in response to people asking for things to be a bit more reflective of the current status quo. While the original film isn't outwardly excluding to some fans, it may not be as easily identifiable as some who aren't white or male. The 2016 film, for all it's flaws, gives female fans greater flexibility. Now, they don't have to dress up as a gender-flipped version of one of the 1984 Ghostbusters. They can be one of the 2016 Ghostbusters if they want to.

We acknowledge that not everything in life is fair or equal, but representation matters, be it women, people of colour, people who are LGBTQ+, or who aren't able-bodied. We're not trying to idealize the world, just make it more reflective of how diverse reality actually is.

...

Respectfuly, no. It was tainted by a body of fans who got up in arms over the fact the new characters were women. Some of them were so steadfastly opposed to the decision that they went out of their way to make vile remarks about the director, actresses, and make horrendous remarks about kids in a children's hospital.

It wasn't tainted by a "battlecry to make everything fair", it was tainted by gatekeeping "fans" who didn't like a creative decision.
I don't think we're on the same page, Kingpin. The point I was trying to get across was that Ghostbusters has always been entertainment first and foremost and never once focused on the secondary characteristics of the characters. Whatever push back from the film, we were all smeared with the same label because of that small group of people, fans or not, had issue with the casting choices simply for being female. The argument for exclusivity/inclusivity ends when a movie becomes a prop and thats when it becomes pot-stirring.

Your first statement makes it seem as though gender swapping the roles in the movie is no big deal, then you make it a big deal because it makes things more accessible. But I have to ask when it hasn't been so? Isn't art supposed to be for all? If you don't enjoy it, then you don't enjoy it. The executives at Colombia at the time weren't thinking "Hey, how can we make this for just one type of person or one group of people?" They were thinking, "How can we make the most money?"

You do that by making something that anyone should be able to enjoy.

If you want to be exclusionary then you do something that excludes people. You don't put on a public screening of something barring entry to specific groups, do you?
#4911575
I think it's safe to say we aren't on the same page. I came around to the view that having a female cast wasn't deserving of the negative response it got - but it was worthy of acknowledging for the fact it meant our fellow female fans could become a closer-knit part of the community than they were before.

Art probably is suppose to be all, so wouldn't that support the greater inclusion of female Ghostheads?

I... I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make with that last paragraph. Nobody was being excluded by the reboot.
Alphagaia, Sav C, robbritton and 1 others liked this
#4911577
The point I was trying to make is that no one was excluded by the originals either.

Reboot or no, our fandom came under attack by the gross oversimplification that the reboot was being dunked on by a small handful of people that were dug up to reflect the sum of the fandom. No matter your leanings on the matter, it should never have been about inclusivity and it became that way. All started by an off comment made by the director and ran with by outlets who spun it and created a divide. A divide that we're still dealing with. The movie happened, love it or hate it. As a community though we need to just drop it I think.
#4911579
Azurial wrote: December 28th, 2018, 7:44 pm The point I was trying to make is that no one was excluded by the originals either.
I agree with your other points, but this is simply not true for the reasons already given. (Winston in marketing and script rewrites amd Janines change of character in the sequel). This is not the fault of the film, but of the times. (The same way smoking was normal and now frowned upon). Things evolve.

Any new movie, sequel or no, will divide, and while this particulair divide was really bad for a number of reasons, mainly because of how social media works, I think we did learn from it, and have grown from it. Yeah we did lose some fans along the way, mostly the trolling kind, but as a fanbase we understand diversity a bit better.
Kingpin, robbritton liked this
#4911692
Speaking anecdotally, one character I significantly relate to due to race and gender is Rocky Balboa. Typically Hollywood portrays Italians as mafiosos, which doesn't bother me so much, but I can't relate to them. While it's all for naught if the movie sucks, a fantastic movie like Rocky, which has a positive Italian lead, is very easy to be inspired by and to relate to (on a more superficial basis than intellect). What I'm saying is that lack of representation, so long as the movie is not going out of its way to be exclusive, will not typically break a film; however, proper representation is really important, as it makes it much easier for people of different backgrounds to relate to a movie, and feel positive about themselves.

Hopefully that's not nonsense, as I am a bit tired.
#4911693
Sav C wrote: January 4th, 2019, 12:42 amSpeaking anecdotally, one character I significantly relate to due to race and gender is Rocky Balboa. Typically Hollywood portrays Italians as mafiosos, which doesn't bother me so much, but I can't relate to them. While it's all for naught if the movie sucks, a fantastic movie like Rocky, which has a positive Italian lead, is very easy to be inspired by and to relate to (on a more superficial basis than intellect). What I'm saying is that lack of representation, so long as the movie is not going out of its way to be exclusive, will not typically break a film; however, proper representation is really important, as it makes it much easier for people of different backgrounds to relate to a movie, and feel positive about themselves.

Hopefully that's not nonsense, as I am a bit tired.
@ *referring to bold*

Actually, Italian is more of a 'Nationality' and not a race; Nationality is based on what country you're from or born in.
#4911697
Alphagaia wrote: December 29th, 2018, 12:38 am
Azurial wrote: December 28th, 2018, 7:44 pm The point I was trying to make is that no one was excluded by the originals either.
I agree with your other points, but this is simply not true for the reasons already given. (Winston in marketing and script rewrites amd Janines change of character in the sequel). This is not the fault of the film, but of the times. (The same way smoking was normal and now frowned upon). Things evolve.

Any new movie, sequel or no, will divide, and while this particulair divide was really bad for a number of reasons, mainly because of how social media works, I think we did learn from it, and have grown from it. Yeah we did lose some fans along the way, mostly the trolling kind, but as a fanbase we understand diversity a bit better.
My beef with ATC wasn't the movie. I liked it. I knew some female fans that got caught in the cross hairs of the "cause." So I kind of took it personally when Paul chose to escalate things rather then ask the feminazi's to take a chill pill. It was just unfortunate that ATC came out during an already heated election cycle. The Uber-Fem's got pretty vicious.
#4911698
Yeah, I remember you getting annoyed by a lot of articles from the Uber-Fems. Social media kept feeding you new ones. I also remember someone, not sure if it was you, who quoted some links from sites that were satirical and thought they were serious, hehe.

Anyways, there were people overreacting on both sides, but I'm not sure what Feig did wrong? He lashed out at a troll on Twitter once, but even that was more then justified in my eyes, though I understand that people preferred he kept his silence.
Sav C, timeware liked this
#4911699
*NormalGamer* wrote: January 4th, 2019, 1:40 am
Sav C wrote: January 4th, 2019, 12:42 amSpeaking anecdotally, one character I significantly relate to due to race and gender is Rocky Balboa. Typically Hollywood portrays Italians as mafiosos, which doesn't bother me so much, but I can't relate to them. While it's all for naught if the movie sucks, a fantastic movie like Rocky, which has a positive Italian lead, is very easy to be inspired by and to relate to (on a more superficial basis than intellect). What I'm saying is that lack of representation, so long as the movie is not going out of its way to be exclusive, will not typically break a film; however, proper representation is really important, as it makes it much easier for people of different backgrounds to relate to a movie, and feel positive about themselves.

Hopefully that's not nonsense, as I am a bit tired.
@ *referring to bold*

Actually, Italian is more of a 'Nationality' and not a race; Nationality is based on what country you're from or born in.
Oops, yeah, I think I knew that distinction. Still, I think my message is still unchanged: I find it even easier to relate to Italian males in movies than just typical white males, and I'm convinced that by having female Ghostbusters, there was a near certainty that there were women who had an easier connecting to the Ghostbusters franchise.

It is absolutely silly to connect to people for reasons other than their intellect, but it is undeniable that many of us connect to people who look like ourselves. We should be accepting and celebrating our differences, realizing that we are neither greater or lesser for them. That is why proper representation matters.

Hopefully I'm not far off base on this.
Alphagaia liked this
#4911701
timeware wrote: January 4th, 2019, 8:17 amSo I kind of took it personally when Paul chose to escalate things rather then ask the feminazi's to take a chill pill. It was just unfortunate that ATC came out during an already heated election cycle. The Uber-Fem's got pretty vicious.
You can't really blame them when you use language like that.
Sav C, Alphagaia, robbritton liked this
#4911705
timeware wrote: January 4th, 2019, 9:11 am Al Bundy was my role model for years.
Al's a role model to us all.
Kingpin wrote:
timeware wrote: January 4th, 2019, 8:17 amSo I kind of took it personally when Paul chose to escalate things rather then ask the feminazi's to take a chill pill. It was just unfortunate that ATC came out during an already heated election cycle. The Uber-Fem's got pretty vicious.
You can't really blame them when you use language like that.
I second this, Kingpin.
timeware wrote:There are different kinds of feminists out there. To rope them all into one category would be more insulting I think. I'm referring to the groups that take hating men to almost a kind of religion.
Those types of "feminists" are in the intellectual minority and are pretty easy to recognize as extremists. True feminists would not tolerate hate based on gender prejudices.
Kingpin wrote:Then go with "extremist", there's no chance for confusion with that one, nor do you trivialise the actual nazis with the trendy and inaccurate "feminazi".
I also second this, by the way. There are actual nazis out there, right now, that we should be concerned about.

timeware, if you wish to call out man-hating-feminists, you should call them misandrists (it's the most accurate term for the people you are attempting to call out).
Kingpin, Alphagaia, Razorgeist and 1 others liked this
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Hey and welcome

My Little Pony/Ghostbusters crossover done by my d[…]

Great work identifying the RS Temperature Control […]

I read Back in Town #1. Spoilers : Hate to b[…]