Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
User avatar
By Spartan B 292
#67170
Personally GB2 is my favorite. The book is it explains it alot more though. If I remember correctly there is a part where dana asks if something in her genetics attracts the supernatural and egon and ray just look at each other with a could be look on thier faces, and there are a few more things. After they go to the museum and winston asks ray if he is coming down. They all pile into Ecto-1A,if you will remember in the montage when ray is driving and runs a red light takes a hard left and peter does a double take that is really part of a deleted scene. Vigo had put ray under a spell of some sort and he was driving like a maniac and after he runs the red light winston says " Ray slow down you're going to kill someone." and ray replies " No i'll kill everyone!" Ray proceeds to try to kill them and winston knocks him out and they run into a tree. So GB 2 could have been more but it is still my favorite. Also some of you might find this funny I do. Im only 22 and I have watched both movies for as long as I can remember but when I was a kid GB2 always seemed darker than GB1. They both were always action movies to me and I never figured out why they were in the comedy section of blockbuster until I got older.
By Gerry Shannon
#70858
Personally, the only serious things that bothered me about GB2 were...

1) The personality change to Janine. Pining for Louis - after doing so for Egon in GB1 and hinted throughout the cartoon show. (Which, to be fair, with regards to the latter, shouldn't have any baring on a film sequel - but just colour me one confused fanboy). I still feel it took something from Egon's character too changing Janine's character.

2) The complete absence of some of Elmer Bernstein's score from GB1. Some of those themes are for me definite for the main characters.

... do I risk abuse saying I might not have minded some MORE Slimer? ;) A sneering comment from Peter would have been a nice callback to the cartoon. (Which, I presume, was the only reason Slimer was ever in a sequel in the first place).
User avatar
By Ectofiend666
#71237
Gerry Shannon wrote:
1) The personality change to Janine. Pining for Louis - after doing so for Egon in GB1 and hinted throughout the cartoon show. (Which, to be fair, with regards to the latter, shouldn't have any baring on a film sequel - but just colour me one confused fanboy). I still feel it took something from Egon's character too changing Janine's character.

2) The complete absence of some of Elmer Bernstein's score from GB1. Some of those themes are for me definite for the main characters.

... do I risk abuse saying I might not have minded some MORE Slimer? ;) A sneering comment from Peter would have been a nice callback to the cartoon. (Which, I presume, was the only reason Slimer was ever in a sequel in the first place).
1] Harold was never a fan of the Egon/Janine dynamic, henceforth why the switch.
2] I believe I read somewhere where Elmer was either too busy, disliked sequels, or was trying to get out of doing just comedies. or something to that effect.
3] There was more Slimer in GBII...It just got cut at the 11th hour...

*Cheers.
User avatar
By Zack
Moderator
#71251
I think in the commentary he said it was kinda mawkish which I didn't know what it meant until I looked it up. Before I thought he was saying it was "mock-ish".

mawkish \MOCK-ish\, adjective:
1. Sickly or excessively sentimental.
2. Insipid in taste; nauseous; disgusting.

It's one of those things that played out for the most part very well in the cartoon. The second Egon and Janine ever would have gotten together, it would have ruined everything that made Egon, Egon. The quirkiness, socially inept etc. The fact that he never knew how to respond etc was funny. There was really nowhere else for it to go in the movies I think. Who's to even say Janine and Louis would have stayed together. Surely not. Maybe they just hooked up for a short bit. Kinda a coworker after hours thing :D

One thing more recently I think is funny if you imagine Janine puts Louis in Egon's uniform because she secretly fantasizes it's him :D :eyeroll: :sigh: One thing that is weird about GB2 is the only scene you see Janine interact with the guys is the credits "trap" scene.

I still will defend Ghostbusters 2 until the day I die. I love it and will be finishing my Slime Blower partly out of spite for GB2 haters :D ;) kidding of course.
By Gerry Shannon
#72012
Having listened to the GB1 commentary (and very much enjoyed it), I can to a degree understand where Ramis himself might be coming from. After all, he did co-write and star in it, and he's regarding the character from the POV of what we seen in the two movies. And Ramis does certainly seem to amusingly revel in recalling some of Egon's more oddball tendacies, (such as his near-cynical smile when talking about Gozer in the jail cell). Certainly, if you're a fan and look at the wider franchise such as the cartoon spin-offs and maybe the comic books, that the whole Egon\Janine dynamic is recognised as an essential trait to both character. But Ramis, be it right or wrongly, is looking at it through the two films from the POV of the benefits to the comedy of his character and preformance, with the character drama second. As such, there's little need to villify him for his overall stance. Even if the Janine\Louis hook-up does nothing for you... which it doesn't for me.
User avatar
By Dan AKA
#72262
Image

Hmmm, if this LICENSED shirt doesn't solidify my original argument with that crazy dude, I dunno what does...

I bet that shirt pisses Senator Ron Daniels off as much as it does me...
User avatar
By loyalGHOSTBUSTER
#75472
Well IMO they wanted to give slimer more of a ghost feel to him.And yeah what gets me is hes only in the film 2 times damn you sony give us the missing clips now LOL.As for the logo yeah its more or les that they wanted to give us the 2nd film feel i don't know who cares all in all i love ghostbusters i don't wanna bash it :whatever:
User avatar
By JT94
#78205
Maybe it was a sunny day, or they're cool hip dudes. Or they wanted to piss off Walter Peck with their lack of regard for public health and safety. That whole clip seems pointless to me, i bet it was part of a bigger scene perhaps that got cut up and shoved into the montage scene.
User avatar
By Dreamstalker
#79127
I always thought the tripod traps were neat, myself. I think it was part of a bigger scene, I could be wrong though.

One thing I really didn't like was the Janine/Louis "subplot". I would have liked to see more of the Janine/Egon dynamic, just the interactions (or attempts thereof). Although with the change to her character it might not have worked out as well.

Overall I think it's not a bad film though, lots of things that I think could have been done a lot better, but what sequel doesn't have at least a few?
By Master Spider
#79132
Not to open a can of worms, because I've never mentioned that relationship nor do I care to discuss it really to the level some have around here and beyond, but isn't Egon's obvious disinterest not something that can stretch '5 years later'? Wouldn't a woman like Janine just look for the next level of nerdy action she was attracted to, and find it like she did?
User avatar
By robbritton
#81912
Back to the logo for a sec - as well as meaning 'peace' and 'two', the v-sign was also a 'thumbs up' style cool greeting in the late 80's early 90's. It was a simple shorthand for 'i'm cool', really. Thus it does make perfect sense as a cheesy rejigged logo in that day and age - exactly the sort of thing the Ghostbusters, with their penchant for free mugs and balloons, would be likely to exploit. Also, crucially, it's funny.
By Master Spider
#91851
I'm only recalling this because I missed that whole locked thread with that idiot in it. I saw a lot of friends of mine here saying they don't care for or don't understand the peace sign, and I'd like to continue that.

At 4, I just kind of passingly thought of it as a peace sign. no self convincing, or anything like that, just "it's the ghost giving a peace sign." I don't really see how it breaks the 4th wall in a movie not with hippy overtones, but with "mood slime" that is about being nice and filled with "peace and love."

LAY IT ON ME, ALL OF YOU. LET'S FIGHT
User avatar
By Pagz
BAMF
#91893
I was 10 when GB2 came out, and honestly, the "peace sign" was totally unknown to me. It's not something my friends or I ever used, it wasn't until later that I learned the signifigance of the sign, and even then it never occured to me that that was what the ghostbusters logo was doing. The peace sign certainly was never short hand for "I'm cool" in the 80s, maybe later in the 90's but definitely not the 80s. And even then, it wasn't shorthand for "I'm cool" so much as it was shorthand for "I'm a douche who is dredging up forgotten symoblism from the '60s in a transparent and pathetic attempt to appear hip". And then Anime made it big in the Americas and the peace sign was back with bloody samurai vengence.

I'll buy the arguement that the ghost is supposed to be giving the peace sign, I can believe that the designer responsible thought of this as a "clever" double entendre. Alas it didn't really play out as such. The other day I did a thoroughly unscientific poll of my office, and it returned a 100% response for "Peace sign? that's stupid." The age range of this group varried from 22 to 47. If it was meant to read as a peace sign, a lot of people clearly weren't getting the message, myself included as this interpretation only made itself known to me this week :p

Then there's the ultimate question of in-film logic. Does the logo make sense in the world of the film. The answer is: Only if it is meant to signify their 2nd time being in business. The peace angle certainly doesn't hold up because 1) the peace sign had long fallen out of popular use, and 2) the underlying message of "peace" in the film would be something the ghostbusters would be totally oblivious to at the point in the story where the logo change was made.

On a purely personal level, I don't like the GB2 logo, I think it looks silly regardless of whether it's a 2 or a peace sign. No amount of debate over what the logo is "meant" to be will ever change my own personal feelings on it. Lame.
By enchanted unicorn
#91896
I think the two fingers held up just meant the number 2. This reminds me of a nauseating trip through an art museum with a docent babbling on about what this work meant, or what the artist may have implied- yada yada yada. But at least that was interperetation of fine art where there may actually be multiple meanings and hidden connections, this is a freaking movie logo! peace.
User avatar
By Zack
Moderator
#91898
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign VICTORY!
Image

I won't try to convince anyone because I myself even think yes it is basically 2, Ghostbusters 2, a second movie. Even as someone who's been doing live theater stuff for a while, even I don't care about the "fourth wall" aspect in Ghostbusters 2 and wonder if people in the production ever thought people would nitpick 20 years later that the symbol for the second movie meaning 2 is that ridiculous in a movie where guys invent equipment that allows them to trap ghosts. The victory/limited promotion idea people talk about within the movie context is enough for me but it's not like they ever come out look at the camera and say "hey look at us, we're in the second movie", it's just a symbol on a sleeve, sign, car. It doesn't seem like really a strong intentional "break". I can understand some people don't care for it or prefer the original.

Think back to 1989, Ghostbusters, the biggest comedy of all time has a sequel, of course it makes sense to put the logo in the movie and on Hardees cups and everywhere. Ghostbusters 2! We've got a new movie, a familiar logo but it's a new hip logo to let people know it's Ghostbusters but it's the new summer blockbuster sequel we want you to go see. Marketing. Just the idea of the logo in the movie is silly but to me it's not something that needed an explanation or reasoning. It's more silly to me that the symbol bothers people in the movie moreso than the logo actually being in the movie.

I do think it is kinda cool that it can take on different meanings as some of the themes in the movie like peace and/or victory are so prominent it's easy to interpret them as such. I still will never understand the "fourth wall" arguments, or I guess understand how it's that bad that it takes anyone out of the movie. :whatever: I'm probably biased as I love GB2 and will do my best to defend/protect it to the death :lol:
User avatar
By Pagz
BAMF
#91903
The 4th wall arguement is pretty minor. GB2 has a lot more problems than a non-sensical logo. I will say that when I was 10 years old it stuck out like a sore thumb to me and my friends. But we still had our Real Ghostbusters toys and cartoons to keep us entertained, so we managed :p
User avatar
By Fritz
Moderator
#91940
One idea that I heard somewhere (it was a long time ago, and I can't remember where): they used a new logo in GB2 because of RGB,, as a way of differentiating from the cartoon. Since the cartoon was using the GB1 logo, they created a newer, different, but still recognizable logo to use in GB2.

Like I said, I have no idea where that idea came from or how much validity it has.

I knew that wand looked familiar! Very nice work[…]

MFW I see notifications on this thread, get exc[…]

The Return of MILKY WHITE Hat Lights

Will this be a short run of lights with a waiting […]

Screen Used Stantz jumpsuit

Yeah, it would be great to get some pics of the po[…]