Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
By RichardLess
#4940729
Ghostbusters 2 has always fascinated me. I have a real cognitive dissonance issue between how I view the film and how others of the time viewed it. Like many of you, I see it as an extremely funny yet worthy follow up to the first film. It’s flawed, no doubt. But it delivers the laughs and the thrills ones expects. Yet Ghostbusters 2 has always had quite the negative reputation. Critics didn’t like it, audiences didn’t like it and it didn’t do nearly as well as anyone hoped or thought. Right?

But I’ve always thought. Wait a minute! How did anyone come to any sort of consensus back in the day of a films quality. So let us examine Ghostbusters 2 and it’s reputation/legacy.

So let us go back to 1989 shall we? Cheers & The Cosby Show ruled the ratings on TV, George Bush is President of the United States and the long awaited sequel to one of the biggest comedies ever made is finally coming to a theatre near you. Ghostbusters 2!

But..you’re a curious individual. You want to know what critics think of this new Ghostbusters sequel that’s coming out. What do you do? There’s no internet(well...not really), no rottentomatoes.com, no Metacritic. So, what are the biggest papers in the country with the widest circulation? New York Times & Washington Post. The paper Hollywood insiders use? Variety. So how does a film get billed as a critical failure or darling? Well, if you want to know if a film is quality or not, these are some of the top choices Americans of that era would use.

Now. What if I told you all 3 of those papers of record gave Ghostbusters 2 a positive review? Not only that, but some thought it an improvement on the original. But what about the average Jane & Joe? What did they think? Well GB2’s cinemascore(the average rating patrons give after seeing a movie) was a very respectable A-(comedies are often extremely varied).

So. We’ve got 3 of the major papers giving the film a positive review. It’s opening weekend box office breaks records. An A- Cinema Score. So how does Ghostbusters 2 get the reputation it had for the majority of its lifespan?

Enter the two most famous film critics to walk the earth. Siskel & Ebert. They crucify Ghostbusters 2. Both enjoyed the first film. Here’s what they had to say:



Ouch.

Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel notwithstanding, you could almost forgive Ivan Reitman, Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd & especially Sony errr “Columbia” for being fairly pleased with how their sequel is doing in this extremely crowded summer tent pole season. The production was a rushed chaos of biblical proportions, with reshoots and release date changes happening extremely late in the game. But positive reviews in the Times and Post? Plus Variety? Biggest opening weekend of all time? Things are looking good.

But we all know how this story ends, don’t we? The summer of 1989 had other plans in store for our heroes. Bat-mania was about to hit and swallow up everything in the zeitgeist without a cape or tights. After that first weekend, Ghostbusters 2 would go down in history as one of the most disappointing sequels to a cultural phenomenon.

So is it that simple? A couple negative reviews from the biggest critics of the era, less box office and Batman?
I think so. I think without Batman, Ghostbusters 2 would’ve ended up with around the same amount as the 3rd Indiana Jones film, which opened in May ‘89. Without that massive box office drop, you’d have a more positive spin on the films financial performance. And the only negative cultural notices would be Siskel & Ebert. If we *really* want to get into alt history, who knows how that could’ve changed the franchise. Would we have had a 3rd film in the mid 1990s? Probably not. But maybe? Maybe Murray sees the sequel in a different light.

Alas time would be kinder to Ghostbusters 2 than 1989 was. The film, still viewed as a lesser instalment by most, has had numerous cheerleader articles over the last 8-10 years. With the passing of Harold Ramis, there’s a bitter sweetness that the films holds between it’s 24 frames per second. Seeing these cultural icons share the screen one last time, with their easy laid back chemistry, is nothing if not mesmerizing. I love the familiarity in scenes like “Rays Occult” or the toaster dance. I love spending time with these actors playing these characters.

I love Ghostbusters 2.
Sav C, Wafflerobot, robbritton and 2 others liked this
#4940732
I have always rated GBII highly, but my opinion is tainted by how hyped I was to see at the cinema as a kid.

Looking back on it now I don't think it's true to say it retreads the original so closely, or that it only has one joke. It does copy the structure of the original and resets the characters as underdogs, but it has some new and inventive ideas, unfortunately with mixed results and little pay-off. The pram chase pales in comparison to the Library Ghost, Louis and Janine were entertaining but a misstep for those characters. Whilst the script is nowhere close to the original, it has enough moments to enjoy. The courtroom scene, sewer, Janosz & Vigo are great and the incidental scares are solid.

What lets GBII down is the third act. The statue of Liberty sequence adds nothing and looks silly. Vigo's confrontation is way too short and doesn't escalate with the threat or imagination of Gozer. Vigo himself needed some ghostly minions like the Terror Dogs or a transformation into a more abstract ghoul at the end. For example you could've had him bringing other paintings or statues at the museum to life. Unfortunately it smacks of being undercooked and rushed. Something which thankfully isn't going to be the case with Afterlife.
JediJones liked this
User avatar
By Dr.D
#4940734
Okay, I want to propose a recontextualization of GB2 that I think will change the way people look at the movie. Without going into an overlong and under edited explanation I offer the following, and I'm sure others have pointed this out as well...

Ghostbusters 2 is the ultimate Mid-life crisis movie.
Sav C liked this
By gerard55
#4940919
Was a so-so movie for me, Vigo never really seemed to be all that big of an Enemy, Gozer had much more presence.

Either they forgot how somethings in the first movie worked like the ghost trap, or they were taking a cue from TRGB Cartoon and simplified stuff like the Ghost trap staying open as long as the foot was on the pedal and closing when it was released. The proton pack activation sound always kicking in when they fired the wands was also a bit of an odd addition.

Never really liked Ecto 1 A, they just seemed to slap as many lights on it as humanly possible and called it a day.

The Scoleri Bros confrontation was imo probably the best part of the movie, the Vigo confrontation just didn't hold a candle to the Gozer confrontation, going from an image in a painting, to a person, to a large head was a bit underwhelming considering the finale of the first movie.

Also..what was the deal with the logo for the movie being the logo they actually used on their uniforms, car, firehouse etc? Was that a bit of fourth wall breaking or was it something that was overlooked?

And they went out of business and everyone thought they were full of crap...despite the fact there are thousands of witnesses and video evidence as well as physical evidence of Stay Puft stomping down a street, demolishing a Church and getting blown up on the side of a building. :-?
Last edited by gerard55 on October 14th, 2020, 9:58 am, edited 3 times in total.
JediJones liked this
User avatar
By Dr.D
#4940920
I love GB2, truly. But what was Vigo's actual plan? To come back as a baby? I was always fuzzy on how his resurrection would be bad, there's no clear idea of what his return will actually mean.

I think the first 40 minutes are on par with the first movie, then it falls off a bit.
JediJones liked this
#4940925
gerard55 wrote: October 14th, 2020, 9:31 am Was a so-so movie for me, Vigo never really seemed to be all that big of an Enemy, Gozer had much more presence.

Either they forgot how somethings in the first movie worked like the ghost trap, or they were taking a cue from TRGB Cartoon and simplified stuff like the Ghost trap staying open as long as the foot was on the pedal and closing when it was released. The proton pack activation sound always kicking in when they fired the wands was also a bit of an odd addition.

Never really liked Ecto 1 A, they just seemed to slap as many lights on it as humanly possible and called it a day.

The Scoleri Bros confrontation was imo probably the best part of the movie, the Vigo confrontation just didn't hold a candle to the Gozer confrontation, going from an image in a painting, to a person, to a large head was a bit underwhelming considering the finale of the first movie.

Also..what was the deal with the logo for the movie being the logo they actually used on their uniforms, car, firehouse etc? Was that a bit of fourth wall breaking or was it something that was overlooked?

And they went out of business and everyone thought they were full of crap...despite the fact there are thousands of witnesses and video evidence as well as physical evidence of Stay Puft stomping down a street, demolishing a Church and getting blown up on the side of a building. :-?
Some valid points. But I’ve never understood the “Why don’t people believe in ghosts” criticism. I mean, we went to the moon numerous times, we have numerous, massive amounts of evidence. Yet a ridiculous amount of people believe it was a hoax. Why would Ghosts caught on camera be any different?

Also, besides the Judge & Hardmeyer, oh and Jason Reitman, who says they don’t believe in Ghosts? Think about it. Who actually says they don’t believe during the film? Not as many as you thought, right? The ghostbusters clearly have numerous fans who show up to cheer them on. So those people obviously believe. They go out of business not because people don’t believe, but because business dried up after Gozer. They destroyed the super conductive antenna.

I just don’t think that criticism has ever held as much water as some people seem to think, given our real world “trust” issues.

The GB2 logo is also a bit of a head scratcher. But I explain it away with the following logic: It’s Ghostbusters 2.0. This is their 2nd go at the business and they decided to use in in their logo & marketing. It’s also a peace sign which ties into the “negative slime and human emotions” thing. Is it air tight logic? No. Not really. But it works for me.

One more thing. I love the Ecto 1A. It’s hilariously over the top(this is a comedy after all) and it’s just awesome to look at.

As for Vigo. I’ve always been a bit conflicted. For 1, I feel he’s 10000X scarier than Gozer. He has a real menacing presence to him. But yes. A painting compared to a “God” is a step down in the threat department. But topping themselves with action and spectacle was something the makers of the film actively sought to avoid. I feel they make up for it in atmosphere & mood. But the 3rd act showdown is just a let down. There’s no two ways about it. What makes it worse is they knew it was a let down, tried to do as much as they could to make it bigger and better. But just ran out of time. That’s what happened. Reitman wanted other things in the museum to come alive from Vigo’s magic that the GB’s have to battle. But that’s what happens when you agree to a release date before a script is ready, and then move that release date up at the last minute.

This should’ve been a Christmas 1989 release. I mean, Jesus, it takes place during the holidays! They would’ve avoided the juggernaut of Batman. They could’ve had more time to improve the film! Who knows where we’d be as a franchise if those simple ideas would’ve been used. Maybe in an alternate dimension Ghostbusters is a 4 film franchise that had the entire cast back for 2 more films. If only...
robbritton liked this
By gerard55
#4940928
RichardLess wrote: October 14th, 2020, 12:00 pm
Some valid points. But I’ve never understood the “Why don’t people believe in ghosts” criticism. I mean, we went to the moon numerous times, we have numerous, massive amounts of evidence. Yet a ridiculous amount of people believe it was a hoax. Why would Ghosts caught on camera be any different?

Also, besides the Judge & Hardmeyer, oh and Jason Reitman, who says they don’t believe in Ghosts? Think about it. Who actually says they don’t believe during the film? Not as many as you thought, right? The ghostbusters clearly have numerous fans who show up to cheer them on. So those people obviously believe. They go out of business not because people don’t believe, but because business dried up after Gozer. They destroyed the super conductive antenna.
That's a a point of view that sort of goes against the dialogue in GB2 that they were essentially sued out of business by the state. Plus all the Ghosts escaped from the containment unit so they would still have Ghosts to catch after taking care of Gozer.

The opening of the movie and in a few scenes some characters push the fraud angle so it seems that quite a few people don't believe any of what happened. You would think that if it was widely believed they saved the world with their actions that night that public opinion would be with them and no legal action would have been possible, yet in the story for GB2 that seems to have gone out the window and they were slapped with lawsuits and that seems to be the factor that put them out of business. Scarceness of ghosts iirc is never mentioned and the only thing that is as a factor is the lawsuits.

That might well have been elaborated on via retcon after the fact but im only taking it as the movie presents it at the time.
#4940941
gerard55 wrote: October 14th, 2020, 1:41 pm
RichardLess wrote: October 14th, 2020, 12:00 pm
Some valid points. But I’ve never understood the “Why don’t people believe in ghosts” criticism. I mean, we went to the moon numerous times, we have numerous, massive amounts of evidence. Yet a ridiculous amount of people believe it was a hoax. Why would Ghosts caught on camera be any different?

Also, besides the Judge & Hardmeyer, oh and Jason Reitman, who says they don’t believe in Ghosts? Think about it. Who actually says they don’t believe during the film? Not as many as you thought, right? The ghostbusters clearly have numerous fans who show up to cheer them on. So those people obviously believe. They go out of business not because people don’t believe, but because business dried up after Gozer. They destroyed the super conductive antenna.
That's a a point of view that sort of goes against the dialogue in GB2 that they were essentially sued out of business by the state. Plus all the Ghosts escaped from the containment unit so they would still have Ghosts to catch after taking care of Gozer.

The opening of the movie and in a few scenes some characters push the fraud angle so it seems that quite a few people don't believe any of what happened. You would think that if it was widely believed they saved the world with their actions that night that public opinion would be with them and no legal action would have been possible, yet in the story for GB2 that seems to have gone out the window and they were slapped with lawsuits and that seems to be the factor that put them out of business. Scarceness of ghosts iirc is never mentioned and the only thing that is as a factor is the lawsuits.

That might well have been elaborated on via retcon after the fact but im only taking it as the movie presents it at the time.
Where is fraud ever mentioned as the reason the Gbs went out of business? There was a court order preventing them from catching ghosts. You are correct scarceness of ghosts is never mentioned. But a court order is. They were sued. Fraud is brought up by hardmeyer as part of their *current* charge from digging in the street. But it has nothing to do with them going out of business.

In the movie only 3 people say they don’t believe in ghosts. One of which is a kid. That’s it. 3. This notion of “Why don’t people believe in ghosts after the first movie” is something that’s come up quite a few times in criticism of GB2. But it’s not really based on fact. Even if more people didn’t believe I don’t see how that is a flaw. People don’t believe in UFO’s despite many videos showing examples. I bring up the moon landings again. Here’s one more thing to think about.

How do you know anyone else saw that Stay Puft Marshmellow Man beyond the witnesses present? Yes a TV crew is present and filming, but we don’t see a broadcast. There’s no scene showing NY Citizens tuned into their TV watching Mr. Stay Puft walk. So there’s quite a bit you are just assuming. Maybe ghosts don’t show up on TV cameras or film? Who knows. I mean, is there footage of Mr. Stay Puft? Most likely. But we don’t see the state of the footage. Is it fuzzy? Clear? There’s so much we don’t know. So if your assumption is “people don’t believe” despite the film not really stating that, you’d have to assume there is a reason why—despite cameras being present.

Again. There are plenty of valid criticisms of the movie. The 3rd act, repeating similar beats of the the first film. But when you actually sit and think about it, we have no reason to suspect most people don’t believe in ghosts in the 2nd film.
robbritton liked this
#4945792
Dr.D wrote: October 14th, 2020, 9:39 am I love GB2, truly. But what was Vigo's actual plan? To come back as a baby? I was always fuzzy on how his resurrection would be bad, there's no clear idea of what his return will actually mean.
Was a so-so movie for me, Vigo never really seemed to be all that big of an Enemy, Gozer had much more presence.
Vigo is a colossal narcissist.
[*]Paints an enormous self-portrait and bonds his soul to it.
[*]Believes with all sincerity that he's the ideal ruler for the 21st Century.
[*]Thinks nothing of overwriting an infant.
[*]Derives his power from bossing others around, and proves to be not much cop in a fight. At his worst, all he can do is paralyze the Ghostbusters and briefly overwrite Ray.
[*]Has a mesmerizing personality/presence to some, but is utterly repellent to others. (Read: Janosz is a bully's "flying monkey," while Dana has more than likely known and dated guys who were worse than either Peter or The Stiff, and listens to her red flags when they pop up.)
[*]Manifests as a swelled head/gigantic ego.
[*]Has no sense of humor and quite a thin skin--notice that he takes an instant dislike to Peter, and doesn't start causing immediate trouble until Peter bruises his ego ("Bit of a sissy, innee?" and the "photoshoot" business in the museum). As an aside, Peter's the only Ghostbuster who can see through Vigo. Ray, Egon, and Winston take him at face value and unintentionally play his game by his rules. In this case, both sides are right in their own way--he is a legitimate threat, but one whose all-too-human flaws can be exploited.
[*]Doesn't think his masterplan through. He takes over a child. Fine. But he's going to have to go through potty training, the K-12 system, holding down a job...He's going to learn very quickly that nobody's willing to put up with his two-bit Joffrey act for very long.
Kingpin, Dr.D, Sav C and 3 others liked this
#4946639
I love this film despite the negative it gets and I understand why many don't enjoy it as much as the first but i mean that's what makes it so unique; not everyone has to like something. I just enjoy the way the film goes more then the first but i love both just as much together. "What was will be! What is will be no more!"
Sav C, Wafflerobot liked this
#4946723
gerard55 wrote: October 14th, 2020, 1:41 pm That's a a point of view that sort of goes against the dialogue in GB2 that they were essentially sued out of business by the state. Plus all the Ghosts escaped from the containment unit so they would still have Ghosts to catch after taking care of Gozer.
I had always thought that the ghosts were absorbed into Gozer's temple, never to be seen again...well, except for Slimer.
pizzarat liked this
#4952963
You can't blame it all on Batman. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids opened the same day as Batman with a FAR lower opening weekend than GB2, and still ended up grossing more than GB2 in the end. Batman had only made half its total gross after two weeks when Lethal Weapon 2 opened. LW2 also opened with less than GB2, but grossed a lot more than it did in the end. Last Crusade made $86 million of its total haul AFTER GB2 opened (whose final gross was $112 million). Back then, movies weren't dead after a couple weeks at the box office. They stayed in theaters and had legs for months, if they were good. Both Last Crusade and GB2 were in theaters for at least 3 months. The competition among all these releases was ongoing all summer, and GB2 just wasn't attracting butts to the seats, similar to Karate Kid III and Star Trek V. People didn't like it, they didn't go back for repeat viewings and they gave it bad word-of-mouth. I sure did. It was a colossal disappointment I would never have recommended to anyone. As far as critics, Time and USA Today were both negative, and far more widely read nationally than Variety or the Washington Post. Sources say the overall reviews at the time were negative.
#4952966
JediJones wrote: July 30th, 2021, 9:45 pm You can't blame it all on Batman. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids opened the same day as Batman with a FAR lower opening weekend than GB2, and still ended up grossing more than GB2 in the end. Batman had only made half its total gross after two weeks when Lethal Weapon 2 opened. LW2 also opened with less than GB2, but grossed a lot more than it did in the end. Last Crusade made $86 million of its total haul AFTER GB2 opened (whose final gross was $112 million). Back then, movies weren't dead after a couple weeks at the box office. They stayed in theaters and had legs for months, if they were good. Both Last Crusade and GB2 were in theaters for at least 3 months. The competition among all these releases was ongoing all summer, and GB2 just wasn't attracting butts to the seats, similar to Karate Kid III and Star Trek V. People didn't like it, they didn't go back for repeat viewings and they gave it bad word-of-mouth. I sure did. It was a colossal disappointment I would never have recommended to anyone. As far as critics, Time and USA Today were both negative, and far more widely read nationally than Variety or the Washington Post. Sources say the overall reviews at the time were negative.
Actually there’s a argument to be made that those films would’ve been even more successful. Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters 2, & Lethal Weapon 2 are all movies that were affected by huge success of Batman. A 40 million opening? The first one ever? The week after Ghostbusters 2 comes out? You seriously don’t think that cut into GB2’s box office like crazy? No one is saying GB2 was going to be as big as the first film, but I think each of those movies were affected. Just like Gremlins was affected by Ghostbusters in 1984. Now it made a lot of money, but the zeitgeist can only hold so much. Batman was HUGE. It’s affect was felt not just by Ghostbusters but by all those movies. I could see GB2 making another 30-40 million easily if Batman wasn’t such a huge hit. Or if they had moved to a holiday ‘89 release which fit with the movies Christmas/New Year theme.

I’m also not saying GB2 received glowing praise by everyone. I’m saying the negatively and the films legacy aren’t as clear cut as it seems. Certainly an A- Cinemascore doesn’t indicate a negative reception of movie by the audience.


As for your own opinion on the film? That I can’t help. How anyone can be a GB fan & not like that movie is a mystery to me. Is it perfect? Nope. But it’s funny, the characters are still great, the plot is interesting & Peter Macnicol as Janosz is a scene stealer. Your comparison to Star Trek & Karate Kid III don’t really hold water when you look at those grosses compared to GB2. Those movies bombed. GB2 was a mild success. It made money, let’s put it way that. 215 million worldwide on a 25-30 million dollar budget? Again, not exactly the failure it’s made out to be.
deadderek, robbritton liked this
#4952969
I think it made exactly the money it was supposed to make. You're not accounting for the fact that "Honey" played its full run against Batman, unlike GB2 it did not get a weekend to itself before Batman came out, and still grossed more than GB2. When you look at how the summer releases stacked up, GB2 had its chance to out-compete other movies, and it could only do it to a couple, KK3 and ST5. The other movies were liked more and/or got better reviews, and likewise tend to be viewed more favorably today. The two it beat are considered terrible today, so all the grosses seem to line up where they should be. December was not really a hot time for family blockbusters in the '80s, so there's no guarantee moving it to then would've gotten a better gross. Reitman came out with other comedies in December and they grossed about what GB2 did. BTTF2 was a November release and also grossed about what GB2 did, facing the same kind of mixed reception and feeling it didn't measure up to the original.

As for my opinion, sure, I can watch it now and enjoy seeing the actors in their famous roles, and admire some peak pre-CGI effects, except for the poorly sculpted Slimer puppet, but there are still many things that irritate me about the movie. At the time, though, it was a major letdown because of the cornball ending, with the Statue of Liberty walking implausibly to gospel music and the "they're actually singing" ending. We went from "I love this town" to "New York deserves to be sucked into the tenth level of Hell." So the worst parts of the movie were stacked up at the end. Even from the beginning though, it was depressing to see the Ghostbusters having lost everything they gained in the previous film's heroic ending with the city cheering them on. And to see Peter not only having lost Dana, but her having married, had a baby, and divorced. Who needs all that drama in a light comedy? Every scene with the baby was very limp comedy palely imitating Three Men and a Baby. Janine and Louis...need I say more? And the snooty dude who was just a pale copy of Walter Peck. Then the really ugly horror scene with the severed heads on sticks. It was shot badly and had no business being in the movie. A big problem is that most of the 'busters' lines just weren't that funny. Like that lame conversation about where they're going to have dinner. And somehow, they weren't directed as well. In the original movie, they seemed to have these authentic, blue-collar, rough edges around them. Here they seemed like slick, hip yuppies. The only thing I really liked in the movie was Vigo. I thought he was a cool villain with some neat dialogue. And the Ray/Vigo hybrid at the end was a neat monster. Not giving him any dialogue after he came out of the painting was a bad choice though. The mood slime itself was an interesting concept that way overstayed its welcome. The movie didn't need more slime in it than the first movie had. Like Murray said, too much slime and not enough of the guys doing anything funny.
Last edited by Kingpin on August 7th, 2021, 10:25 am, edited 2 times in total.Reason: Removed problematic content.
#4952988
JediJones wrote: July 30th, 2021, 11:09 pm I think it made exactly the money it was supposed to make. You're not accounting for the fact that "Honey" played its full run against Batman, unlike GB2 it did not get a weekend to itself before Batman came out, and still grossed more than GB2. When you look at how the summer releases stacked up, GB2 had its chance to out-compete other movies, and it could only do it to a couple, KK3 and ST5. The other movies were liked more and/or got better reviews, and likewise tend to be viewed more favorably today. The two it beat are considered terrible today, so all the grosses seem to line up where they should be. December was not really a hot time for family blockbusters in the '80s, so there's no guarantee moving it to then would've gotten a better gross. Reitman came out with other comedies in December and they grossed about what GB2 did. BTTF2 was a November release and also grossed about what GB2 did, facing the same kind of mixed reception and feeling it didn't measure up to the original.

As for my opinion, sure, I can watch it now and enjoy seeing the actors in their famous roles, and admire some peak pre-CGI effects, except for the poorly sculpted Slimer puppet, but there are still many things that irritate me about the movie. At the time, though, it was a major letdown because of the cornball ending, with the Statue of Liberty walking implausibly to gospel music and the "they're actually singing" ending. We went from "I love this town" to "New York deserves to be sucked into the tenth level of Hell." So the worst parts of the movie were stacked up at the end. Even from the beginning though, it was depressing to see the Ghostbusters having lost everything they gained in the previous film's heroic ending with the city cheering them on. And to see Peter not only having lost Dana, but her having married, had a baby, and divorced. Who needs all that drama in a light comedy? Every scene with the baby was very limp comedy palely imitating Three Men and a Baby. Janine and Louis...need I say more? And the snooty dude who was just a pale copy of Walter Peck. Then the really ugly horror scene with the severed heads on sticks. It was shot badly and had no business being in the movie. A big problem is that most of the 'busters' lines just weren't that funny. Like that lame conversation about where they're going to have dinner. And somehow, they weren't directed as well. In the original movie, they seemed to have these authentic, blue-collar, rough edges around them. Here they seemed like slick, hip yuppies. The only thing I really liked in the movie was Vigo. I thought he was a cool villain with some neat dialogue. And the Ray/Vigo hybrid at the end was a neat monster. Not giving him any dialogue after he came out of the painting was a bad choice though. The mood slime itself was an interesting concept that way overstayed its welcome. The movie didn't need more slime in it than the first movie had. Like Murray said, too much slime and not enough of the guys doing anything funny.
Again, this a completely hypothetical reality but I don’t think anyone could possible dispute that if you take Batman out of the mix these movies make more money. Ghostbusters 2 literally broke the record for biggest opening weekend of all time. Of all time! Only for the very next weekend Batman comes out and beats that record! 3 movies were competing for essentially the same audience. Batman, Ghostbusters 2 and Indy 3. (Honey I Shrunk the Kids was more of a family-kids movie). Indy got great reviews and audiences loved it but I think it under performered by about 20-30 million.

I have always found it interesting that both Back to the Future 2 and Ghostbusters 2 made similar amounts.

You may not like Slimer’s redesign but to say he’s badly “sculpted”? Huh? How is he badly sculpted? Did you mean that you just don’t like his design compared to the first film or that there are technical issues with the sculpt?

And the dinner conversation that you describe as lame…what? Really? You don’t like that scene? Man. I love it! It fits exactly within the ghostbusters MO. The mundane & the fantastic. I LOVE THAT moment. Two guys who are viewing a legit real demonic wizard’s picture take a break to talk about what they want to eat. Lol. Like it’s nothing. Just another Tuesday. Come on dude.

“Who needs all that drama in a light comedy?” And who said it’s suppose to be a light comedy? You’re putting the movie in a box. This movie is very character based. We get good character moments. Murray’s “a lot of Slime and not alot of us” is actually complete BS. There is ALOT of them. Most sequels would’ve had them busting ghosts left & right. But GB2 is actually very restrained. Having Dana & Peter break up makes complete sense to me. Does he seem like Husband material? And the scene we get with him and the baby where he says “ya know I could’ve been for father”…I love that. A rare moment of heartfelt truth from him. Having Dana & Peter together doesn’t give them anywhere interesting to go.

I love that the Ghostbusters start out disbanded and out of business. They are doing birthday parties for kids, Pete has a basic cable public access TV show, Ray owns an occult book store! Egon is ruining people’s marriage in the name of science! I could watch a movie of that without the ghosts and supernatural. Just the guys living their lives.

Yes the movie has problems. 3rd act problems. Vigo goes down waaay too easily. You can tell the finale was chopped up and reshot. Vigo and the Ghostbusters never even appear in the same frame. Vigo looks different from one scene to the next. Walter Peck 2.0 is just Walter Peck with a different name. Winston gets the shaft by not being included in the earlier GB scenes or first bust.

And wait. Gospel music? Higher & Higher? Gospel music? I think you need to listen to what gospel music sounds like lol. Higher & Higher is straight up R&B. It is not gospel music. Yikes.

And no one says “New York deserves to get sucked down to the tenth level of hell” what are you talking about? The mayor says he’ll be known as the”Mayor who let New York get sucked down into the tenth level of hell”. I think you might need to rewatch this movie. Winston says “I love this town!” And gets a similar beat with “Hey! New York! What a town!”.

The Three Men & A Baby comparison just doesn’t fit either. There’s what? 1 scene of the Gb’s examining the baby? Hardly a fair criticism. But not the first time I’ve seen someone make it. It just never felt right to me. Just a lazy comparison of “oh this comedy has a baby! And this comedy has a baby! Both have 3 men!”.

Like I said, there are issues with this movie that are fair game. It does follow the same beats as the first movie, the 3rd act is very rushed and anti climactic, especially compared with the first movie, Vigo is an interesting villain whose given almost nothing to do. The movie ends on a very lame joke. But besides that?

Like I said, it’s funny, it’s interesting, some fascinating concepts and cool visuals. I love spending time with these characters. It’s a worthy sequel in my opinion.
Last edited by Kingpin on August 7th, 2021, 10:34 am, edited 2 times in total.Reason: Removed problematic content.
robbritton liked this
#4952990
I don't like broken relationships being inserted into movies offscreen after you were built up to believe those characters were going to be treating each other better than that. I didn't like it in Superman Returns or The Force Awakens any more than I did in GB2. Ultimately, it's a lot of drama that was put offscreen, that ought to have been in the movie itself, if it was going to be done that way at all. The older GB2 script with a new actress playing the single mother made a lot more sense than putting Dana into that role. Then the relationship doesn't have all this baggage that they broke up and now might get back together after this entire other relationship happened offscreen, in a rather short time.

I do think it should have actually been Peter and Dana's son. That makes the stakes higher for the main character of the movie, with his own son at risk. It would've been interesting to see maybe Murray had left the busters and then has to call his friends in to help him with the supernatural goings-on affecting his family. I'm fine with the Ghostbusters' business suffering due to lack of ghosts, but they should absolutely NOT have been sued or hated by the city. That's totally absurd. But getting back to Peter and Dana, we don't need the Thirtysomething relationship complications added in. This is a straight adventure movie and it would've been better to keep their relationship plain and simple. The relationship material with Dana and Peter was so weak in GB2, it couldn't possibly have gotten any weaker if they were married.

I also don't think married characters, or committed couples are boring in fiction, as is the popular myth. A husband-and-wife team of adventurers is a highly underutilized concept, and has been done successfully when tried, such as on the show Hart to Hart. The sequel Jewel of the Nile also kept its couple together, and I believe just had them looking for a way to bring some excitement back in their relationship. Also, the first few Die Hards show a married guy who is motivated to fight based on protecting his wife, which worked perfectly for the story.

The Vigo part of the ending doesn't really bother me. The Statue of Liberty and the singing New Yorkers are the bad parts. I do like that Louis thinks he blew up the slime. But I really wish the snooty guy being eaten by the slime deleted scene had been kept in there, because it's not clear at all what kind of a threat the slime barrier is without that. I like the Louis as a Ghostbuster subplot, and him making friends with Slimer, but that really doesn't have enough payoff in the end. And, yes, Slimer needed a better sculpt. It didn't match his original look. I like that Peter has to try to save them just with wisecracks. That's a great position to put his character in. The movie needed memorable dialogue if it needed anything, so I don't see a great argument for adding more action to the climax. The possession of Ray is great, I just wish the earlier car chase had been kept in there to set it all the way up. I like that the things Vigo does are indirect, like cause the fire (and the deleted possessed driving). That just makes him a more interesting villain than someone who might be shooting laser beams out of his hands. Because he shows power as a ruler who sits on his throne and lets others do his dirty work. I'm not even sure I hate the idea of the Statue of Liberty being used there, but the music choice and being an unconvincing effect were problems. I could've maybe bought it more if the statue had been spiritually possessed, was haunting the city and then they took it over, rather than the whole slime/music angle.

The issue with New York is that they paint its people as damaged and in need of fixing. The first movie was a celebration of New York. This movie is scolding New York in a preachy way. And it feels like an afterschool special, or the moral lesson attached to the end of an '80s cartoon. Whatever it is, it's death to the comedy. That's the kind of sugar sweet storyline an anarchic comedy is supposed to lampoon. Ghostbusters was a movie for cynical wise-asses and that plotline made GB2 into exactly the kind of movie cynical wise-asses hate.
Last edited by Kingpin on August 7th, 2021, 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.Reason: Removed problematic content.
#4953006
JediJones wrote: July 31st, 2021, 2:45 pm I don't like broken relationships being inserted into movies offscreen after you were built up to believe those characters were going to be treating each other better than that. I didn't like it in Superman Returns or The Force Awakens any more than I did in GB2. Ultimately, it's a lot of drama that was put offscreen, that ought to have been in the movie itself, if it was going to be done that way at all. The older GB2 script with a new actress playing the single mother made a lot more sense than putting Dana into that role. Then the relationship doesn't have all this baggage that they broke up and now might get back together after this entire other relationship happened offscreen, in a rather short time.

I do think it should have actually been Peter and Dana's son. That makes the stakes higher for the main character of the movie, with his own son at risk. It would've been interesting to see maybe Murray had left the busters and then has to call his friends in to help him with the supernatural goings-on affecting his family. I'm fine with the Ghostbusters' business suffering due to lack of ghosts, but they should absolutely NOT have been sued or hated by the city. That's totally absurd. But getting back to Peter and Dana, we don't need the Thirtysomething relationship complications added in. This is a straight adventure movie and it would've been better to keep their relationship plain and simple. The relationship material with Dana and Peter was so weak in GB2, it couldn't possibly have gotten any weaker if they were married.

I also don't think married characters, or committed couples are boring in fiction, as is the popular myth. A husband-and-wife team of adventurers is a highly underutilized concept, and has been done successfully when tried, such as on the show Hart to Hart. The sequel Jewel of the Nile also kept its couple together, and I believe just had them looking for a way to bring some excitement back in their relationship. Also, the first few Die Hards show a married guy who is motivated to fight based on protecting his wife, which worked perfectly for the story.

The Vigo part of the ending doesn't really bother me. The Statue of Liberty and the singing New Yorkers are the bad parts. I do like that Louis thinks he blew up the slime. But I really wish the snooty guy being eaten by the slime deleted scene had been kept in there, because it's not clear at all what kind of a threat the slime barrier is without that. I like the Louis as a Ghostbuster subplot, and him making friends with Slimer, but that really doesn't have enough payoff in the end. And, yes, Slimer needed a better sculpt. It didn't match his original look. I like that Peter has to try to save them just with wisecracks. That's a great position to put his character in. The movie needed memorable dialogue if it needed anything, so I don't see a great argument for adding more action to the climax. The possession of Ray is great, I just wish the earlier car chase had been kept in there to set it all the way up. I like that the things Vigo does are indirect, like cause the fire (and the deleted possessed driving). That just makes him a more interesting villain than someone who might be shooting laser beams out of his hands. Because he shows power as a ruler who sits on his throne and lets others do his dirty work. I'm not even sure I hate the idea of the Statue of Liberty being used there, but the music choice and being an unconvincing effect were problems. I could've maybe bought it more if the statue had been spiritually possessed, was haunting the city and then they took it over, rather than the whole slime/music angle.

The issue with New York is that they paint its people as damaged and in need of fixing. The first movie was a celebration of New York. This movie is scolding New York in a preachy way. And it feels like an afterschool special, or the moral lesson attached to the end of an '80s cartoon. Whatever it is, it's death to the comedy. That's the kind of sugar sweet storyline an anarchic comedy is supposed to lampoon. Ghostbusters was a movie for cynical wise-asses and that plotline made GB2 into exactly the kind of movie cynical wise-asses hate.
I think you want the Peter Venkman character to be something he isn’t. There is a version of the script, the 1st or 2nd draft, where Dana isn’t the love interest at all. It’s a woman named Lane. If you haven’t read it check it out. Anyways, this script has Venkman being proactive. He gets the ghostbusters back together again after Lane asks him for help(thankfully they didn’t make this version as boy oh boy does Venkman act like a creep. This woman just got out of a bad relationship, is terrified for her child & Venkman just wants to get in her pants). *EDIT*: ***Just reread your post and you mention this other script***

I just find it odd that you have an issue with Dana & Venkman splitting up and getting back together. It makes sense to me. The paranormal brings them together. Venkman obviously isn’t the type of character to have lasting relationships & having the baby be Venkman’s makes it too personal in a way. I love Venkman calling him ugly and putting him down. I think a more interesting idea would’ve been to have Louis be the father and Oscar was conceived during the possession of the first movie. Granted the 5 year time jump wouldn’t work as well.

Why do you have an issue with the Gb’s getting sued?? It’s always more interesting starting your characters from zero, on the ropes, out of the game. I think it works really well. A) it’s realistic. B)These guys were operating unlicensed nuclear weapons & crossing the streams causes the building to blow up.

So about Slimer. Just to be clear. It’s the re-design you don’t like, right? Because the “sculpt” is flawless. This is ILM we are talking about here. Dennis Murren. Is there something you can point to in the sculpt that’s flawed specifically? They didn’t match the original design because they weren’t trying to match the original design. He was purposely re designed for this film. I personally think he’s too big & prefer the GB1 look. That’s why I ask if it’s the design you are talking about. The sculpting is fine. It came out exactly how they intended. But the design is different.

How was the first movie a celebration of New York? New York was a shit hole in the 1980s. The first movie represents New York well but beyond Winston going “I love this town!” It’s not exactly a celebration. GB2 takes New York to task for being both the cesspool it is(was) & the beautiful city that can come together & beat the odds. Hell I think GB2 celebrated New York more with the line “being miserable & treating other people like dirt, is every New Yorkers god given right”. New York was a crime infested, corrupt, economic nightmare hell hole in the 1980s. New York was incredibly damaged and in need of fixing. The crime rate was insane! Is the end a little corny, having the people singing that helps the GB’s take down Vigo? Sure it is. But what’s wrong with that? It works in context and it’s not like it’s a dues ex machina that comes out of nowhere. It’s set up pretty well.

I think they defeat Vigo far too easily. And it’s choppy as hell. You can tell parts of it were reshot. They needed something extra. When Reitman was adding stuff to the movie in post production he realized they defeated Vigo too easily & wanted Vigo to bring other paintings & sculptures in the museum to “life” so they could distract the GB’s while he deals with Oscar. But they just ran out of time. The production of GB2 is quite fascinating. It changed quite a bit in post production & reshoots. The entire subway sequence with the train and the heads was added after production had wrapped. Same with a few other scenes.

I don’t think they should’ve kept Hardmeyer getting sucked into the Slime. Have you seen that scene? It just doesn’t work. It’s awkward, Hardmeyer’s acting is over the top. Granted maybe with some complete FX, music & editing it would’ve come across better.

Again, it amazes me that someone can enjoy the first film so much but not the 2nd one. The sense of humour & comedy style is the same, it has great quotable dialogue, the characters are still great. It’s very funny. The World of the Physic scene is hilarious! Every scene with Janosz is gold(“free parking…”), it’s scarier than the first film, Vigo is terrifying and the subway sequence is creepy as hell, same with the slime bathtub scene. Egon’s slinky line is funny, Ray sleeping with the Slime is great, Bill Murray’s face when he finds out the museum security guards other favourite show is “bass masters” lol. I laugh just thinking about it. Louis representing the GB’s in court is gold! “That blue thing I got from her! They could be exposing themselves!” Venkman, not one to miss an opportunity like this:”And you don’t want us—exposing ourselves!”. Louis putting Oscar to sleep by regaling him about the tax situation of the Dwarves from Snow White. Jeanine “Your very good with children” Louis “Thanks. I practiced on my hamster” also Louis “I use to have a roommate…but my mom moved to Florida”. I mean come on! These are great lines.
Last edited by Kingpin on August 7th, 2021, 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.Reason: Removed problematic content.
robbritton liked this
#4953358
I read a summary of the older GB2 draft, but didn't read the whole thing. I definitely like the idea of Venkman having to get the Ghostbusters back together again. We needed SOME kind of spin on the original movie to avoid repeating itself. Making Venkman the most proactive Ghostbuster would be one good one.

The whole spiritual point of GB1 is that the GBs defeated Walter Peck and won over the mayor and the citizens. So to undo that and have Walter Peck's point-of-view win out after the credits roll is attacking the satisfaction delivered by the first movie. Having them go out of business because ghosts disappeared was enough. And the movie also digs itself into a hole with that "everyone hates them" angle. What they did in the courtroom would do nothing to win back the hearts and minds of the people. It would get them back in business though, which is the only underdog angle the movie needed. And to believe that New Yorkers suddenly didn't believe in ghosts after the massive media coverage and the Stay Puft incident is preposterous. There are plenty of witnesses in the city who could attest to what happened.

There's a quote where Murray says his favorite GB1 scene is the bridge scene, and I think he described the movie as a love letter to New York, a celebration of New York, or one of the best movies about New York then. It's not about claiming New York is perfect. It's about seeing the charm and beauty of what's there. Or even creating a pleasing mythical version of it. You could forget the name of the city and just say you're talking about people. I don't want to see a movie that's preachy and telling me humanity has to end its evil ways, learn to get their morality back and that evil spirits are punishing them for their sins. It's more involving when you watch normal, innocent people get haunted and have to fight evil. Ultimately, the themes of sin, morality, guilt, punishment, etc. work best in a movie when it's all about one character you're focusing on, not when you're applying generic, collective guilt to an entire population. And bad-mouthing a city in the process. True or not, it's not entertaining for me to listen to a city get trashed and smeared. I like to see the GBs saving the city from ghosts, not saving the city from themselves.

I kind of like anticlimactic climaxes. I like when it's one neat trick that trips up the villain in the end, like in Superman II, Kill Bill 2 or Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. As opposed to needing a massive final battle or a giant explosion to take him down. The part that ruins it for me is the singing being the key thing that weakens Vigo. I would have rather seen Louis come in, distract Vigo and save the guys, even if accidentally somehow. Or even Slimer. I don't know if I felt that way at the time or not, but now my inner fanboy says a fully heroic Slimer would've been great to use in the GB2 climax.

The first film is definitely an American classic I've seen a hundred times or more. It's ingenious, imaginative, hilarious, memorable, believable, likable and full of energy. The second one, I was extremely disappointed by in 1989. Re-watching it, it's easier to pick out things I like here and there, but the stuff that really irritated me still sticks out as major flaws. And unfortunately most of those are fundamental concepts to the plot that weigh down on the movie quite heavily. The sheer amount of references to slime really wear me down, tire me out and make it hard to sit through all the way again. Yes, the woman on World of the Psychic is probably the funniest part of the movie. Egon's line about wanting to shoot the monster is great. But there are too many desperate, unfunny lines like, "Vigo the butch," "We got arrested at night," "named after a hot dog," etc.

It shouldn't be that hard to understand why fans of the first don't like the second. You can read all the fan reviews online. User reviews drop over 25 percentage points on Rotten Tomatoes. IMDB goes from 7.8 to 6.6. I'm just amazed comparing clips of the two movies at how full of life and energy the first one seems and just how dead, stiff and dull the second one seems in comparison. The basic "movie magic" that convinces you you're watching reality as opposed to watching actors standing around in front of a camera isn't there. When Egon says in the first movie, "shorten your stream, I don't want my face burned off," they're showing they've given extra thought to how ghostbusting would work in real life. You don't get that kind of texture in the second movie. Moranis is pretty much the only returning actor who seems to be comfortable in his skin and happy to be there. It feels like the concepts for the movie weren't very inspiring to the actors and required too much explaining to get them across to the audience, which hurt the actors' ability to ad lib as well as they did in the first movie. Given the production schedule, they probably had less good dialogue already on the page for part 2 and were relying more on ad libs to save them, which just didn't work out so well in the end.
Last edited by Kingpin on August 7th, 2021, 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.Reason: Removed problematic content.
deadderek liked this
#4953486
JediJones wrote: August 5th, 2021, 3:15 pm I read a summary of the older GB2 draft, but didn't read the whole thing. I definitely like the idea of Venkman having to get the Ghostbusters back together again. We needed SOME kind of spin on the original movie to avoid repeating itself. Making Venkman the most proactive Ghostbuster would be one good one.

The whole spiritual point of GB1 is that the GBs defeated Walter Peck and won over the mayor and the citizens. So to undo that and have Walter Peck's point-of-view win out after the credits roll is attacking the satisfaction delivered by the first movie. Having them go out of business because ghosts disappeared was enough. And the movie also digs itself into a hole with that "everyone hates them" angle. What they did in the courtroom would do nothing to win back the hearts and minds of the people. It would get them back in business though, which is the only underdog angle the movie needed. And to believe that New Yorkers suddenly didn't believe in ghosts after the massive media coverage and the Stay Puft incident is preposterous. There are plenty of witnesses in the city who could attest to what happened.

There's a quote where Murray says his favorite GB1 scene is the bridge scene, and I think he described the movie as a love letter to New York, a celebration of New York, or one of the best movies about New York then. It's not about claiming New York is perfect. It's about seeing the charm and beauty of what's there. Or even creating a pleasing mythical version of it. You could forget the name of the city and just say you're talking about people. I don't want to see a movie that's preachy and telling me humanity has to end its evil ways, learn to get their morality back and that evil spirits are punishing them for their sins. It's more involving when you watch normal, innocent people get haunted and have to fight evil. Ultimately, the themes of sin, morality, guilt, punishment, etc. work best in a movie when it's all about one character you're focusing on, not when you're applying generic, collective guilt to an entire population. And bad-mouthing a city in the process. True or not, it's not entertaining for me to listen to a city get trashed and smeared. I like to see the GBs saving the city from ghosts, not saving the city from themselves.

I kind of like anticlimactic climaxes. I like when it's one neat trick that trips up the villain in the end, like in Superman II, Kill Bill 2 or Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. As opposed to needing a massive final battle or a giant explosion to take him down. The part that ruins it for me is the singing being the key thing that weakens Vigo. I would have rather seen Louis come in, distract Vigo and save the guys, even if accidentally somehow. Or even Slimer. I don't know if I felt that way at the time or not, but now my inner fanboy says a fully heroic Slimer would've been great to use in the GB2 climax.

The first film is definitely an American classic I've seen a hundred times or more. It's ingenious, imaginative, hilarious, memorable, believable, likable and full of energy. The second one, I was extremely disappointed by in 1989. Re-watching it, it's easier to pick out things I like here and there, but the stuff that really irritated me still sticks out as major flaws. And unfortunately most of those are fundamental concepts to the plot that weigh down on the movie quite heavily. The sheer amount of references to slime really wear me down, tire me out and make it hard to sit through all the way again. Yes, the woman on World of the Psychic is probably the funniest part of the movie. Egon's line about wanting to shoot the monster is great. But there are too many desperate, unfunny lines like, "Vigo the butch," "We got arrested at night," "named after a hot dog," etc.

It shouldn't be that hard to understand why fans of the first don't like the second. You can read all the fan reviews online. User reviews drop over 25 percentage points on Rotten Tomatoes. IMDB goes from 7.8 to 6.6. I'm just amazed comparing clips of the two movies at how full of life and energy the first one seems and just how dead, stiff and dull the second one seems in comparison. The basic "movie magic" that convinces you you're watching reality as opposed to watching actors standing around in front of a camera isn't there. When Egon says in the first movie, "shorten your stream, I don't want my face burned off," they're showing they've given extra thought to how ghostbusting would work in real life. You don't get that kind of texture in the second movie. Moranis is pretty much the only returning actor who seems to be comfortable in his skin and happy to be there. It feels like the concepts for the movie weren't very inspiring to the actors and required too much explaining to get them across to the audience, which hurt the actors' ability to ad lib as well as they did in the first movie. Given the production schedule, they probably had less good dialogue already on the page for part 2 and were relying more on ad libs to save them, which just didn't work out so well in the end.
It’s no secret Ghostbusters 2 has a bad reputation. But it’s reputation has actually vastly improved over the years. People are starting to see the light. It use to have a 5.9/10 on IMDb. It’s now shot up to a 6.6-6.7 in the last few years. Numerous articles were written around its 25th &30th anniversary about how misunderstood and underrated it is. So the tide is changing in it’s favour. Frankly I find IMDb and rottentomatoes to be misleading anyways. Prone to review bombing and comedies tend to be rated lower than action/fantasy/sci fi or drama movies. Ghostbusters 1 is only a 7.8. That’s rather low. So when you consider that Ghostbusters 2 is only 1.1.-1.2 points off, that’s actually not a bad comparison. Ghostbusters 1 is by far the better film. I’d say Ghostbusters 2’s proper rating should be a 7.5 and GB1 an 8.8.

As for your suggestion that the acting is flat, you aren’t the first person I’ve seen suggest that. I just don’t agree. I see Bill Murray giving it his all. You want to see what a disinterested Bill Murray looks like? Watch GB16 or Space Jam. Watch Osmosis Jones.

And come on “they named you after a Hot Dog” is a terrific line. Plus it’s funny because he’s breaking a little babies balls. Like he’s one of the guys. “Hes ugly. Well he’s not elephant man ugly” lol. Come on! You don’t find that funny? Or Bill Murray doing the magazine photo shoot with Vigo? “Ooh no. I have all new cheap moves” “I had part of a slinky, but I straightened it”. The way Bill Murray delivers the “Hello Dana” line in the overly serious way like he’s some scorned lover from a 1940s melodrama. Or the “you never got it. I’m a man! I’m sensitive! I need to feel love, I need to be desired!”. I think Murray gives it his all. Sure it’s not a fresh as GB1 but he’s just as funny & sardonic as before. I don’t get the “flat performance” thing at all.

I gotta say, you have some weird ideas about why you don’t like a movie. Bad mouthing a city? That’s a new one. You realize New Yorkers help defeating Vigo in the end, right? I don’t think they bad mouth the city. They are more telling it like it is. New York has some bad apples but it’s a great place overall. That’s the point. They aren’t bad mouthing it. They are just showing it for what it is. New Yorkers take pride in their reputation as tough but loveable assholes. There’s difference between characters in the movie saying something and then the filmmakers actual point. I think it’s clear they’ve got nothing but love for New York. The GBs do save the city from ghosts. New York helps defeat Vigo!

And here’s the thing about “everyone hates the GB’s” and “no one believes in ghosts”. It’s, pardon my French, “horseshit”. I’ve seen people make this argument and it’s never held up. Let’s count the people who don’t believe in ghosts in GB2. Ok. Ready? #1 The Kid at the bday party, #2 Jack Hardmeyer #3 The Judge.

That’s it. 3 people.
Soo 3 people=everyone? Did you miss the part of the movie where the court cheers in the GBs favour? Or that people cheer them on outside the museum? We went to the moon! In real life. Multiple times. We have fantastic footage of it. Yet millions…literally millions! Millions of people don’t believe we went to the moon. Or look at UFOs. We have some terrific footage of UFOs and yet…not everyone believes in Aliens. I used this example before but it kinda makes sense. Did you know that a magician made the Statue of Liberty disappear on live TV? It’s true. You can go find the footage on YouTube. David Copperfield. In the mid 1980s. People watching on TV saw a man make the Statue of Liberty disappear. Now anyone with a brain knows it was a trick. An illusion. But whose to say people don’t question Mr Stay Puft in the same kind of way? Jesus there’s an incredible number of people who still say the world is flat. So when the movie shows us 3 or so people not believing in ghosts, well, based on what we know about people in this world? In our reality? It should’ve been a lot more. So I’ve always thought that criticism of GB2 was BS. We really don’t see that many people outright say “ghosts aren’t real”.

Anyways, I’m sure after reading all this you’ll see the light & think “my god! I was wrong! Ghostbusters 2 is actually a pretty good but flawed movie after all”. Or we are both so entrenched into our beliefs you’ll think “is this guy crazy? Does he not see how bad this movie is? Are we seeing different versions of the same movie? How can two people who love the first film see things so differently on the sequel”

Let me ask you something, when’s the last time you gave GB2 a watch? If it’s been awhile, try it again. Try and forget all the baggage we bring with us to movies, expectation and all that. Just see it with a clear head and take the movie on its own terms. Who knows. Maybe you’ll see something you didn’t before. That’s happened to me many times on movies I’ve disliked. I rewatched it in the right mood and it changed for me.
Last edited by Kingpin on August 7th, 2021, 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.Reason: Removed problematic content.
robbritton, JA Slow liked this
#4953490
I've removed the content in question, but I wished to state that most people would agree the character referenced was a racist, culturally insensitive stereotype, and that blackface/brownface is also racist, culturally insensitive and unacceptable in modern times.

There is no defending it.

With that now said, the topic is unlocked.
RichardLess, robbritton liked this
#4953515
On the topic of "everyone hating the Ghostbusters makes no sense" - the plot is driven by a literal river of negative energy that is affecting the citizens as much as their negativity is feeding it. It's a loop. It would make much less sense for everyone to be positive given the existence of the river of slime.
#4953566
As a kid it was a very exciting time for me and I really enjoyed it. As an adult, I still prefer Ghostbusters 1. The music, humor and atmosphere IMO are superior to the superheroic music and copycat plot points from GB2.
#4953624
RE: DrD and RichardLess

It really needed to be a "winter blues" movie. It occurred to me the other day that the negativity of the slime MIGHT be written off as seasonal affect disorder, which would prevent the 'Busters from making the connection UNTIL they start getting reports of things like the bathtub.

It would also help to explain ECTO-1A and the "We're Back" logo--the boys are trying to beat the winter blues by reinvigorating their branding.
#4954186
South Suburbs GBFan wrote: August 10th, 2021, 9:15 am RE: DrD and RichardLess

It really needed to be a "winter blues" movie. It occurred to me the other day that the negativity of the slime MIGHT be written off as seasonal affect disorder, which would prevent the 'Busters from making the connection UNTIL they start getting reports of things like the bathtub.

It would also help to explain ECTO-1A and the "We're Back" logo--the boys are trying to beat the winter blues by reinvigorating their branding.
Yes. Dana’s baby carriage taking off on its own and Ray seeing a river of slime underneath the spot where it stopped could’ve totally been written off as….”winter blues”.

Dana:”Ok! I lied! The carriage didn’t take off on its own! I pushed it into traffic! I just can’t take this seasonal weather anymore!”

    I like that there appears to be a Smash alien at t[…]

    I know this is an old thread, but it's such a co[…]

    Almost there! https://i.postimg.cc/W4qF42BR/Imag[…]

    New pack build

    Started weathering it up and got the lighting set […]