Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
#4881823
First off, this is discussion only. Any fighting or name calling and I'll have this post locked. No one's opinion is more important than anyone else's. Please be respectful!

Something occurred to me. Over the course of this year so far it seems that a lot of people have become more vocal about their displeasure of Ghostbusters 2. Now as an 80's child I love the sequel and enjoy it more the older I get. However, I'll admit the film has it's flaws. The plot is more or less a rehash of the original. But there are still a lot of great jokes (Murray is in fine form here) and Peter MacNichol is wonderful as Janosz plus let's not forget the impact that it had for those of us who cosplay: a variant uniform with different patches and accessories, the giga meter and lastly the Slimeblower.

But in the recent months leading up to and surrounding the release of Answer The Call, it seems that the GB 2 hate train pulled out of the station when people became critical (not trolls but those with rational critique) of the reboot. So if so many, that claim in their eyes, that they love the original but dislike the sequel that's made by the same cast and crew, be so desperate for a sequel to ATC when if the original crew couldn't make a good sequel, why would Feig and Company fare better?

Again no mud slinging but good discussion!
#4881824
I do think a lot of fans have been chasing the ghost (yes, pun) of GB84 for a very long time. A GBII was never going to live up to their expectations, and neither was a GBIII, IMO.

I have to say lately I've found it difficult to watch GB84. I'm kinda glad GBII has been comparatively ignored; it doesn't feel so tainted by all the drama.
#4881829
The only time I remember anyone saying anything negative about GB2 was immediately after the release in 1989. Moviegoers were vaguely disappointed. It didn't help matters that the summer of 1989 had a ridiculous slate, actually very similar to the situation in 1984. There was a lot of hype for many, many films and GB2 kinda got lost in that mix. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't the top banana like GB1 was in 1984. Any other year and GB2 would have ridden high and been remembered more fondly.

Personally, I think GB2 is every bit as fun as the first film. Maybe not technically as good but equally enjoyable.
#4881830
DarkSpectre wrote:As someone who's not overly enthused by GB 2 but likes the reboot do you feel an ATC sequel would fare better than GB 2 did
Ohhhh, I see. I misunderstood you. I'm actually a big supporter of GB2, lol.

I get what you're saying now. You're talking about people bashing GB2 just to defend the reboot. I was completely against that, especially that awful Wired article. If I was a regular subscriber, I would have boycotted, lol.

But back to your point, I think ATC fans are mainly desperate for a sequel because, in this franchise-gone-mad culture, that's seen as a confirmation of success.
#4881831
Great stuff guys, thank you!

And I can understand that ideal, Juror about using it as a success gauge. That's why I'm hoping others chime in as well to give their reasons as to why an ATC sequel wouldn't be looked down on as GB 2 apparently has become.
#4881832
DarkSpectre wrote:Great stuff guys, thank you!

And I can understand that ideal, Juror about using it as a success gauge. That's why I'm hoping others chime in as well to give their reasons as to why an ATC sequel wouldn't be looked down on as GB 2 apparently has become.
Well also, like I said before, GB84 was such a huge success, it would be very difficult for any kind of sequel to compete. Whereas, a sequel to ATC has the potential to fix some mistakes, or expanded on what did work.
#4881834
DarkSpectre wrote:It's a shame Ramis passed. It would be interesting to see what He and Dan could do with the new team.
I'll be honest, if Harold and Dan were in the movie, I'd probably fast forward through the scenes with only the new team, lol.
#4881836
I enjoy gb2, and I'll agree it is flawed and was a little too similar to the original, but I really do like the new film.

I really like a sequel because in this new universe and new team, there's a lot of new things they can do and explore. Hell, a sequel could do the same, but I'd like to see what else they can do with this new team as we already have so many stories with the originals (video game and IDW comics).

ATC was goid, but flawed and I think a sequel could iron out the wrinkles ATC had.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4881837
I'd have to wonder if Ghost Corps (i.e. Reitman) would have more say and control if a sequel were to materialize. I have no issues with the characters more so with execution. Obviously this one wasn't a homerun so would allowing the same production team return warrant better results?
#4881840
bishopdonmiguel wrote:The only time I remember anyone saying anything negative about GB2 was immediately after the release in 1989. Moviegoers were vaguely disappointed. It didn't help matters that the summer of 1989 had a ridiculous slate, actually very similar to the situation in 1984. There was a lot of hype for many, many films and GB2 kinda got lost in that mix. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't the top banana like GB1 was in 1984. Any other year and GB2 would have ridden high and been remembered more fondly.

Personally, I think GB2 is every bit as fun as the first film. Maybe not technically as good but equally enjoyable.
@ *referring to bold*

That's pretty much exactly how I feel about both films; I enjoy them 'both' for what they are, even with it's flaws.

For ATC? I will have to see it for myself to make a final judgement when it comes out on DVD/blu-ray next month.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4881843
DarkSpectre wrote:I meant as writers
Oh writing for this particular new team? I think they would have given more time to Abby and Erin's frenemy relationship; it wouldn't been dropped so quickly.
DarkSpectre wrote:I'd have to wonder if Ghost Corps (i.e. Reitman) would have more say and control if a sequel were to materialize. I have no issues with the characters more so with execution. Obviously this one wasn't a homerun so would allowing the same production team return warrant better results?
Well since Pascal was let go, that might mean the same for others from her team. I don't know for sure, obviously.
#4881846
I'd legitimately be curious to see what a different director and writing team could do with these characters. I'd like to see it more ensemble in nature and less of a McCarthy vehicle. Here's another thing to consider though. Given the sh*tstorm of negativity surrounding the film and it's disappointing box office, would a different production team even be willing to give it a shot? My money is on Ivan stepping back behind the camera with Feig producing and writing along with Dan.
#4881872
DarkSpectre wrote:First off, this is discussion only. Any fighting or name calling and I'll have this post locked. No one's opinion is more important than anyone else's. Please be respectful!

Something occurred to me. Over the course of this year so far it seems that a lot of people have become more vocal about their displeasure of Ghostbusters 2. Now as an 80's child I love the sequel and enjoy it more the older I get. However, I'll admit the film has it's flaws. The plot is more or less a rehash of the original. But there are still a lot of great jokes (Murray is in fine form here) and Peter MacNichol is wonderful as Janosz plus let's not forget the impact that it had for those of us who cosplay: a variant uniform with different patches and accessories, the giga meter and lastly the Slimeblower.

But in the recent months leading up to and surrounding the release of Answer The Call, it seems that the GB 2 hate train pulled out of the station when people became critical (not trolls but those with rational critique) of the reboot. So if so many, that claim in their eyes, that they love the original but dislike the sequel that's made by the same cast and crew, be so desperate for a sequel to ATC when if the original crew couldn't make a good sequel, why would Feig and Company fare better?

Again no mud slinging but good discussion!
Is GB16 itself better than GB89? If it isn't, a sequel to GB16 almost certainly wouldn't be as good as GB89.

I'm tired of the GB89 bashing too. I can admit a movie I like really wasn't that good, like GB89. But first GB89 suffered as Phantom Menace did, from expectations hard for any production to live up to; and now seems to me people put GB16 ahead of it just to promote GB16. Did GB16 have anything as cool as the "On our own" song"*, or a walking Statue of Liberty, or make over 5 times its production budget in the box office.....?

*https://youtu.be/uHv9r28DTUE
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4881889
The first Ghostbusters was written to be a standalone movie. It had a beginning and an end! They only made a sequel, because the first one was a big hit. It was purely a money decission!

Now ATC feels incomplete as if it's just a part of a duo or trilogy. The end feels as if it's just the beginning, because the public has just realised and accepted the existence of ghosts. Even if it isn't spelled out, it had a big bright "To be continued" sign all over it, even without the aftercredit scenes! It was written to be the start of a series. But I don't think the story will ever be completed because the movie wasn't the big success they wished for!
It's pretty much like it was with another movie called "The Golden Compass"! The books were a trilogy, the movie had an open end but the sequels were never made because part one didn't really kick off! Or imagine if part one of the LotR movies had failed the other two would not have been made and the end of "Fellowship" would feel as incomplete!

Therefore a sequel would improve ATC more than GBII improved the original GB!
#4881899
HunterCC wrote: Did GB16 have anything as cool as the "On our own" song"*, or a walking Statue of Liberty, or make over 5 times its production budget in the box office.....?
Agree on the first two, GB16 has nothing remotely as cool as "On Our Own" or Liberty. :-D

I don't consider box office to be something that's cool or not cool. Maybe if I worked on Wall Street. ;)
Sav C liked this
#4881902
I truly believe that GB 2 suffered from A. a bloated summer as pointed out earlier and B The Real Ghostbusters. It was about that time when the parents council overhauled the show, toned down the darker elements and made Slimer the forefront. Murray also laments that the script he read was much differnt and better than the final product which makes me wonder if the sequel was originally more in line tonally with the original.

Also there are alot of RGB comparisons in ATC, but really thanks to the parents council debacle, GB 2 played out like an RGB episode as well. So much infact that the NOW Comics adaptation featured the RGB in place of the movie versions.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4881905
DarkSpectre wrote: Also there are alot of RGB comparisons in ATC, but really thanks to the parents council debacle, GB 2 played out like an RGB episode as well.

I think the studio just realized a huge amount of their audience were children. It's like, I remember Paul Stanley of KISS once commenting that they felt a certain responsibility to tone down their concerts "because there were kids there all of a sudden." I think that's just a natural reaction we all have when kids are around, we start behaving better. It's just that RGB hired a group that clearly had no idea what it was doing. Thankfully, GBII's changes were nowhere near that tragic, lol.

Only thing that ever bugs me is, the story should have so obviously been about Ray! If you're going to have a movie about positivity vs negativity, the Ghostbuster who is a literal Ray of sunshine should clearly be the focus. He's the one lamenting the end of the Ghostbusters and the ungrateful yuppie larvae, he's the one who finds the slime in the first place and then gets targeted by Vigo throughout the movie. The blue prints are sprinkled throughout the movie, they just never ceased the opportunity. It would have happened if this were RGB, because the cast was more of an ensemble and everyone gets their own episode to shine. But in the first movie, Venkman is clearly the front man, and they probably didn't want to risk messing with the formula.
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on September 29th, 2016, 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
#4881911
Wanted to chime in all day yesterday but never found the time... I think Ghostbusters II's reputation is largely skewed in a negative way, caused by many different factors from some fans who were really disappointed (I would assume they are the ones saying that Ghostbusters was already tarnished by GBII,) Siskel and Ebert giving it a much worse review than it deserved even though they made some solid arguments, and Bill has been pretty down on it--in public.

People feel GBII is much worse than it actually is, and have the mindset that it could probably be topped easily. Besides like has been said on here, quite a few people feel that ATC had more potential that they could live up to in the sequel, while they pretty much reached full potential for the first film.

I've got to say, I don't think GBII was a rehash. Plots are similar, and open any screenplay book and odds are you'll find a line graph showing you what a plot looks like. Besides would anyone really want it to be different than the first one? Because if yes, then it doesn't feel like a Ghostbusters movie.
JurorNo.2, DarkSpectre, ccv66 and 1 others liked this
#4881922
JurorNo.2 wrote:
HunterCC wrote: Did GB16 have anything as cool as the "On our own" song"*, or a walking Statue of Liberty, or make over 5 times its production budget in the box office.....?
Agree on the first two, GB16 has nothing remotely as cool as "On Our Own" or Liberty. :-D

I don't consider box office to be something that's cool or not cool. Maybe if I worked on Wall Street. ;)
Yeah, the box office and fan reaction to the first couple star trek movies kinda prove an earlier point of yours that box office, while I still think it's important, isn't the end all be all of whether a movie is good. If GB16 is as good as GB89, then maybe a sequel of GB16 would be as good as GB89. I'm just thinking if GB16 isn't as good as GB89, no way would a sequel be better IMO.
#4881927
HunterCC wrote:Yeah, the box office and fan reaction to the first couple star trek movies kinda prove an earlier point of yours that box office, while I still think it's important, isn't the end all be all of whether a movie is good.
I appreciate that. :)

And that means something with the year I've spent with this franchise.
#4881939
Gb2 gets hated on, but it was a movie made for kids, their target audience. Less adult humor and content and unfortunately because of that it doesn't hold up as well. I saw gb2 in theatres when i 4 and i was thrilled with it. Making a more kid friendly Ghostbusters was probably a poor Choice but i understand their thought process especially with Rgb being so popular. Where ATC was more paul feigs interpretation of ghostbusters
#4881940
ccv66 wrote:Gb2 gets hated on, but it was a movie made for kids, their target audience. Less adult humor and content and unfortunately because of that it doesn't hold up as well. I saw gb2 in theatres when i 4 and i was thrilled with it. Making a more kid friendly Ghostbusters was probably a poor Choice but i understand their thought process especially with Rgb being so popular. Where ATC was more paul feigs interpretation of ghostbusters
I don't think GBII was toned down intentionally, the story just didn't happen to call for the same kind of adult humor as the first one. In the first one a lot of the adult humor came from key master/gatekeeper subplot, while GBII didn't need that kind of subplot for the story to work. They didn't smoke not because they wanted to make it kid friendly but because between '84 and '89 almost everyone stopped smoking in films. At least that's my interpretation :)
#4881945
Sav C wrote:
ccv66 wrote:Gb2 gets hated on, but it was a movie made for kids, their target audience. Less adult humor and content and unfortunately because of that it doesn't hold up as well. I saw gb2 in theatres when i 4 and i was thrilled with it. Making a more kid friendly Ghostbusters was probably a poor Choice but i understand their thought process especially with Rgb being so popular. Where ATC was more paul feigs interpretation of ghostbusters
I don't think GBII was toned down intentionally, the story just didn't happen to call for the same kind of adult humor as the first one. In the first one a lot of the adult humor came from key master/gatekeeper subplot, while GBII didn't need that kind of subplot for the story to work. They didn't smoke not because they wanted to make it kid friendly but because between '84 and '89 almost everyone stopped smoking in films. At least that's my interpretation :)
Agreed. I'm glad we see them mature beyond master/keeper puns, lol. Dana and Peter's restaurant scene in GBII was certainly more sensitive and thoughtful than anything I could comprehend as a child. Or Janine and Louis' bit about the "roommate," I had no idea what was going on, lol. Negativity taking over, that's something that weighs heavily on a 30 or 40 year old. Not a child. I don't see it as a movie "for kids" at all.
#4881990
DarkSpectre wrote:Also the humor is much more subtle in GB 2. The World of the Psychic bit is one of my favorite sequences.
I think Bill Murray was right when he said there was too much time spent on special effects instead of the characters. I would rather have seen more of any of the GB doing their own activities like Bill Murrays show, than for example the bathroom slime scene. IMO a major strength of both movies was the characters, wouldn't have hurt to make the movie a little longer showing more of Ray, Winston, Egon, Peter, Dana, Janinie, and Louis doing their own thing. Whichever would be funniest and most charming.
JurorNo.2 liked this

Or if you bought the access pack you get them inst[…]

Now that we at SAGB have actually got through our […]

Has anyone successfully transferred the pedal el[…]

I have not heard of this. On the Matty PKE, if the[…]