Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4878639
I saw GB2016 opening weeked, and overall, I thought it was an alright movie. Some aspects about it were good, some not as much. One of the more underwhelming aspects, in my opinion, was the main villain: Rowan North.

Spoilers ahead!!

We first meet Rowan greeting Patty as he walks by her ticket booth, and just by the way he speaks to her, we know something is off about him. As time goes on, we find out Rowan has been placing devices along ley lines in New York City that summon ghosts, eventually planning to bring about the end of the world. In the interim, we see that his day to day life isn't exactly pleasant; he's insulted and ordered around by co-workers, two waitresses argue that the other should wait on him this time so the former doesn't have to. One gets the impression he has been bullied most of his life, and this is what drives him.

While the Ghostbusters in this movie have been able to rise above the bullying and ridicule, Rowan let it consume him to the point of wanting to bring about the Fourth Cataclysm, using Abby and Erins book to aid in his plan.

Now, I felt that the idea of Rowan was solid: a human being doing all the footwork himself with no higher power guiding him. The movie did well in showcasing his intelligence and obsession (especially when it was apparent that killing himself was part of the plan). However, I felt that something was lacking. He came off sad and creepy for sure, but not quite scary. The actor (Neil Casey) I don't think deserves blame: I felt that he did his best with the material given. So, where did GB2016 go wrong with its villain?

Let's take a look back at the originals villain:
Gozer was frightening because of the build-up and tension through out the original Ghostbusters. The audience discovers little by little the details at the same time the Ghostbusters do; from Dana Barrett hearing Zuul in her refrigerator, all the way to Egon explaining Ivo Shandors backstory of starting a Gozerian cult and designing a superconductive antenna for concentrating spiritual turbulence into Danas building. The pacing works for this film since up until the jailhouse scene, the audience does not know why ghosts are suddenly appearing in high numbers through out New York. In GB2016, it's spelled out not too far into the story, and the suspense is killed.

Of course, one can't forget about Ivo Shandor. I feel that his reasoning for wanting to bring about the end of the world (society being too sick to survive), and having close to a thousand followers who shared his beliefs was much more terrifying. Rowans reason (being bullied and mistreated) pales in comparison. Even after Shandor died, the original movie shows the terrifying power of an evil ideology if given a chance to spread.

Then we have the payoff. When Gozer finally appears, I was in awe at the same time being absolutely terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought. The build up still works. In GB2016, I thought it was clever that Rowan became a destructor form of the Ghostbusters mascot, but I didn't feel there was a great payoff when he's revealed (I guess the trailers can be blamed as well). It felt sort of 'meh.'

As for how Rowan compares to Vigo the Carpathian? I do find Vigo to be a little bit scarier. He's able to harness all the negativity from the city, and have it flow back to him via the mood slime. That, along with commanding Janosz, and possessing Ray briefly shows he had considerable power despite being trapped in a painting. Plus, just look at him! He's a very imposing looking dude. and his demonic form combined with the roaring sound effects are well done. Although, the movie did drop the ball by having him barely speak in the finale, even though we saw him conversing with Janosz twice.

All in all, Rowan wasn't a terrible villain, just not as memorable (at least until his destructor form). However, I want to stress this is merely my own opinion, and I wanted to hear other thoughts on the subject as well.

So, what are your thoughts?
MonaLS liked this
#4878641
I agree -- Rowan didn't work because he had no impact, which to be fair to Neil Casey came more from the script. He didn't have much opportunity to do anything interesting. He just spoke to Patty like a crazy, spoke to a mirror like a crazy, scribbled in a book like a crazy, then flew like Peter Pan.

...all of which would have worked with Janosz, only because there was Vigo behind the scenes. Someone menacing to be afraid of. Paul tried to change the formula by having the minion character working for himself, but that detracted from the final fight.

Now, if Rowan had pulled something nasty through the portal at the end, problem lessened. Still needed a rising sense of threat in my opinion.
#4878646
I thought the idea of Rowan was nice, I just felt his execution lacked depth. If we had a little more scenes with him, more show and less tell, I think he would have been a better villain.

After his death he improved and became more menacing as he finally has power. It's too little in my opinion. He shows off power by freezing the police force, but strangely enough not the GB, which should have been explained, and grows into a great looking villain. I really like this idea and the design. I just wish a little more done with the ending.

For me the villain and the finale are great missed opportunities, and mostly what brought the movie down to a 7.

Perhaps the extended cut gives us a better villain!
#4878648
At first when he was just "some guy" trying to open the gates or whatever I thought he was fine, I thought maybe he was like Ivo Shandor and was like a disciple of the real big bad, but then when it turned out he WAS the villain, and via a possessed Kevin flying around flinging one liners and villain monologues at the GB.. Ugh. So lame.

Vigo and Janosz are they best villains in the series.
#4878653
Janosz is easily the best, I agree!

As for Rowan, I liked the actors' performances (both Casey and Hemsworth) even if the character is underwritten. I like Rowan's first scene where he's actually being civil to Patty as a worker; that gave him a bit of dimension. I've said before, he has this great Peter Lorre quality. And I liked how other people reacted to him throughout the story. Hemsworth also has great presence as Rowan, they shouldn't have worried so much about the dance sequence being corny.

I will say they lost an opportunity to draw a more direct parallel between Rowan and the Ghostbusters--the ridicule they deal with in life. Maybe there's more of that in the extended version.
Alphagaia liked this
#4878667
Sav C wrote:Janosz is a great character, but my biggest criticism of GBII is that his subplot with Dana was largely unnesecery and creepy. I hope the mood slime made him less of a creep.

Sorry for any typos, I'm writing on a iPad.
I always believed his unanswered crush for Dana was the catalyst for turning 'to the dark side'.
JurorNo.2, Sav C liked this
#4878668
I think him being the disciple of an other-worldly power like a Gozer would have worked better. It would have made more sense as to how he was able to wield so much power.

I also get what they were going for by having Rowan use the Ghost of our Past book as his basis of technology. But, as I have said before, it made the world feel small.

I think him being a Shandor kind of character would made me care a lot more about his motivations.
#4878672
MagicPrime wrote:But that begs the question. Why was he so powerful? Why couldn't any of the dozens of other ghosts we saw do the same thing and become giant Ghostbusters logos?

Is Rowan really Beetlejuice? That would make more sense. The Ghostbusters and Beetlejuice do have a history.
It seems a human dying on a leyline creates a quite powerful ghost, if we can trust Patty and the historian explaining the deaths of the first two powerful ghosts.
Rowan died on a leyline crossing at the hands of a machine created to suck up pke. So that's two leylines and a machine. Quite a difference and explains his higher power level.
JurorNo.2, Kingpin liked this
#4878673
Alphagaia wrote:
Sav C wrote:Janosz is a great character, but my biggest criticism of GBII is that his subplot with Dana was largely unnesecery and creepy. I hope the mood slime made him less of a creep.

Sorry for any typos, I'm writing on a iPad.
I always believed his unanswered crush for Dana was the catalyst for turning 'to the dark side'.
He's worse than Louis was with Dana, definitely. She has an iron clad workplace harassment lawsuit, lol. But it also goes back to the theme of negativity. He tells his employees "everything you're doing is bad" and then wonders why no one wants to be around him. I like that his arc is bonding with Ray at the end, because that's all he really wanted was a friend. And he is at the Statue of Liberty ceremony at the end, so I take that as his being part of the gang now. Like how Louis was kind of an opportunistic at the end of GBI ("Anybody want to interview me?") but in GBII he's completely on their side (going "Wow!" when they catch the ghosts in the courtroom).
Sav C liked this
#4878675
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:
I always believed his unanswered crush for Dana was the catalyst for turning 'to the dark side'.
He's worse than Louis was with Dana, definitely. She has an iron clad workplace harassment lawsuit, lol. But it also goes back to the theme of negativity. He tells his employees "everything you're doing is bad" and then wonders why no one wants to be around him. I like that his arc is bonding with Ray at the end, because that's all he really wanted was a friend. And he is at the Statue of Liberty ceremony at the end, so I take that as his being part of the gang now. Like how Louis was kind of an opportunistic at the end of GBI ("Anybody want to interview me?") but in GBII he's completely on their side (going "Wow!" when they catch the ghosts in the courtroom).
You're both right. It might've been better though if Janosz's motivation to kidnap Oscar was because Vigo liked Dana, instead of because he liked Dana.

I'm not great at spotting character arcs, and typically need them spelled out for me, so now that you've pointed out that him making friends with Ray was pretty much all he actually wanted, I won't find his subplot a lose end in the story anymore.
#4878676
I thought the book did a little better job of fleshing Rowan out more as a mirror to the Ghostbusters. Where they both had similar backstories of bullying, being disregarded, and underestimated, the Ghostbusters tried to rise above it, while Rowan used their research to reach a very similar point technology-wise, but for the exact opposite goal.

When I was reading it, I thought the best way for it to end would be Rowan committing suicide in the hopes of being a ruler only to find out that it was REALLY presumptive of him that he would be able to control all these ghosts by getting disregarded by the ghosts he let out (which would include a truly terrifying character that becomes the big boss the GB have to defeat).

That's how I hoped the book would end, anyway. But the idea of Rowan getting everything he wanted and STILL getting owned is okay too. I like the idea of removing any possible excuses from any situation. I've been thinking about the differences and perhaps this is on purpose. Where my idea of an ancient terrifying entity isn't original since it was done in BOTH Ghostbusters movies, the idea of a newcomer doing everything and becoming a worse version of himself is new within the mythos and maybe that was the point.
JurorNo.2, zeta otaku liked this
#4878677
Sav C wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:
He's worse than Louis was with Dana, definitely. She has an iron clad workplace harassment lawsuit, lol. But it also goes back to the theme of negativity. He tells his employees "everything you're doing is bad" and then wonders why no one wants to be around him. I like that his arc is bonding with Ray at the end, because that's all he really wanted was a friend. And he is at the Statue of Liberty ceremony at the end, so I take that as his being part of the gang now. Like how Louis was kind of an opportunistic at the end of GBI ("Anybody want to interview me?") but in GBII he's completely on their side (going "Wow!" when they catch the ghosts in the courtroom).
You're both right. It might've been better though if Janosz's motivation to kidnap Oscar was because Vigo liked Dana, instead of because he liked Dana.

I'm not great at spotting character arcs, and typically need them spelled out for me, so now that you've pointed out that him making friends with Ray was pretty much all he actually wanted, I won't find his subplot a lose end in the story anymore.
No, that was a great point you brought out!

And also, I mean you definitely need to give Janosz some kind of redemption. He didn't ask to be taken over by Vigo and kidnap a baby; he's a funny character we all like, we want to see him become a good guy.
Sav C liked this
#4878678
Just Russ wrote:I thought the book did a little better job of fleshing Rowan out more as a mirror to the Ghostbusters. Where they both had similar backstories of bullying, being disregarded, and underestimated, the Ghostbusters tried to rise above it, while Rowan used their research to reach a very similar point technology-wise, but for the exact opposite goal.

When I was reading it, I thought the best way for it to end would be Rowan committing suicide in the hopes of being a ruler only to find out that it was REALLY presumptive of him that he would be able to control all these ghosts by getting disregarded by the ghosts he let out (which would include a truly terrifying character that becomes the big boss the GB have to defeat).

That's how I hoped the book would end, anyway. But the idea of Rowan getting everything he wanted and STILL getting owned is okay too. I like the idea of removing any possible excuses from any situation. I've been thinking about the differences and perhaps this is on purpose. Where my idea of an ancient terrifying entity isn't original since it was done in BOTH Ghostbusters movies, the idea of a newcomer doing everything and becoming a worse version of himself is new within the mythos and maybe that was the point.
And if the book did a better job, it's usually because things got cut in editing. ;)

I like your idea, it would have been more of a twist.
#4878693
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Sav C wrote: You're both right. It might've been better though if Janosz's motivation to kidnap Oscar was because Vigo liked Dana, instead of because he liked Dana.

I'm not great at spotting character arcs, and typically need them spelled out for me, so now that you've pointed out that him making friends with Ray was pretty much all he actually wanted, I won't find his subplot a lose end in the story anymore.
No, that was a great point you brought out!

And also, I mean you definitely need to give Janosz some kind of redemption. He didn't ask to be taken over by Vigo and kidnap a baby; he's a funny character we all like, we want to see him become a good guy.
Thanks :) You're right about Janosz.

Here's a bit of interesting trivia about Janosz/Vigo: Vigo is based on a guy named Vlad (who happened to be a bit of a sissy.) Another character based on Vlad was Dracula. As you might know, in the Mel Brooks film Dracula: Dead and Loving It Peter MacNicol plays Renfield, who is possessed by Dracula. That makes for two movies where Peter MacNicol plays a character who is possessed by a someone based on Vlad.

Also Steven Weber and Amy Yasbeck are both in Dracula: Dead and Loving It, and they were also on one of my favorite shows Wings.
Last edited by Sav C on August 26th, 2016, 2:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4880744
From another post... *snip*
He is objectively one of the weakest elements of the film; he's a terrible villain (not the good kind of terrible, either). The entire basis for Rowan destroying the world is "I was teased"... it's one hell of a stretch from bullied to "destroyer of worlds." There is literally no attempt by the film to describe Rowan's motivation for "harnessing(?)" ghosts, how he became the person he is, how the HELL he figured any of this out by reading a book, and how in god's name he KNEW he could be reincarnated as a ghost. The entire threat of Rowan in the 3rd act is one GIANT f****g deus ex machina. He gains powers and abilities that have NEVER been described in the film's lore and make no sense in the context of the climax. How does he know he'll become a ghost when he dies? Why can he possess a whole army by waving his arms? What the hell is behind his "Chose the form of the destructor" powers (beyond just a crappy throwback line to the original film)?

Rowan is arguably the weakest part of a film that is riddled with weaknesses. As a comparison, Gozer has a couple minutes of screentime and yet, through dialog littered throughout the film, we know more about it's history than a film centered around Rowan as the villain. Terrible antagonist indeed.
If Just Russ' description of the book is true, at least the idea of Rowan as a mirror image of the protagonists is SOMEWHAT interesting.... but as it stands, his character in the film is unbelievably shallow without a hint of back story or motivation.
#4880827
A problem is that even with a roughly two-hour running time, your still not likely to get much character development with a villain in a Hollywood film as you'll be spending a chunk of that time developing the protagonist/s, and on top of that, you may see lazier writing because it's the villain, and the writer is either working to an expectation the audience might have, or may not consider the character worthy of greater depth, which is obviously a shame, as there can be great cinematic villains out there.

Of course, there's also the danger of too much depth: Anakin Skywalker immediately comes to mind.
#4880852
The first film does an excellent job providing a back story for the main villain despite its first screen appearance being at the end of the film for a couple minutes. A dog in the fridge grabs your attention and you want to know more. For the rest of the film characters drop hints about the villain as they themselves learn more about 'Gozer' and how 'he' was "very big in Sumeria." By the time Gozer descends from the glass pyramid we know all we need to know about the god, how the dogs play into everything, and how the building allowed 'him' to enter the world... and in a brilliant comedic decision, Gozer is essentially an interdimensional supermodel; you've been set up to think you're prepared for Gozer only to find out It's a woman. It's a brilliant reveal and the perfectly realized villain for the film.

Ghostbusters II is fine... but the villain is just a boilerplate madman, nowhere near as creative as the first film. However, juxtaposed against Rowan, he is a much more realized antagonist.
pferreira1983 liked this
#4881512
Scuba Steve wrote:The first film does an excellent job providing a back story for the main villain despite its first screen appearance being at the end of the film for a couple minutes. A dog in the fridge grabs your attention and you want to know more. For the rest of the film characters drop hints about the villain as they themselves learn more about 'Gozer' and how 'he' was "very big in Sumeria." By the time Gozer descends from the glass pyramid we know all we need to know about the god, how the dogs play into everything, and how the building allowed 'him' to enter the world... and in a brilliant comedic decision, Gozer is essentially an interdimensional supermodel; you've been set up to think you're prepared for Gozer only to find out It's a woman. It's a brilliant reveal and the perfectly realized villain for the film.

Ghostbusters II is fine... but the villain is just a boilerplate madman, nowhere near as creative as the first film. However, juxtaposed against Rowan, he is a much more realized antagonist.
I agree although I think with Vigo they went with a villain who knew how to get what he wanted. Maybe he was less powerful but using Janosz as a tool he took a different tactic to Gozer by having him stalk and try to corrupt Dana. Much more creepy, twisted and conniving.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4881553
A nice video of Rowan's (Alternate) design:

I like how he actually complies to both Patty and Holtzmann demands: 'cute and cuddly', and something 'like a bullseye.'



Extra edit: if you pause the scene when the logo is forming, it twists around and looks like a bullseye!
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4882352
Well, looking back at the production of GB: ATC we do know bullying brings out the worst in people, but I agree. I believe in the original idea Rowan had a manifesto where he took revenge on people that slightest him in the past, making it more of a personal vendetta, but it evolved into a Ivo Shandorlike all people are shit, time for a bit of pestering.
Which worked for GB84 because it's back story for a back story, but in GB:ATC it's should have given a bit more depth.

The extended cut gives him more parallels to the GB, and how Erin was on a path to become a Rowan, (trying to fit in but being socially akward, people ignoring her left and right, her pride causing Heiss to fall out of the window, becoming a nosebuster by letting her emotions run rampant, leave the GB after things get tough) but I still would have liked more.
Last edited by Alphagaia on October 5th, 2016, 4:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
JurorNo.2 liked this

I found a cool tube at Ollies discount outlet, and[…]

Finally got my copy today - It's not the worst I'v[…]

I don't remember exactly, But I think I've had pr[…]

Someone ID'd them on Facebook first, there w[…]