Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4889978
Sooooo if nobody had read the comic or the viral digital book then nobody would have known?
The point is if the filmmakers can't be bothered to explain the science properly in the movie why should we think it makes sense? I mean I'm seeing ghosts get shredded and chopped in half. What the hell?!
This is why I referred to the Stay Puft blowing up situation.
This is not explained in the movie at all. Most Egon says is the door swings both ways and hints that they can close it by crossing the streams. No mention of this destroying (or capturing) Gozer .

Astyanax has a nice explanation for it, and I believe it's probably true, and make my peace.
Yet you seem dead set on pointing out a flaw that is explained in the GB:ATC related book, while the Gozer situation was not. That's just you having a bit of double standards.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4889979
I don't remember jokes in 80s comedies dragging constantly.
Really? None? Don't romanticize.
The point is if the filmmakers can't be bothered to explain the science properly in the movie why should we think it makes sense? I mean I'm seeing ghosts get shredded and chopped in half. What the hell?!
It's a comedy, not Science Fiction.
By pferreira1983
#4889988
Yet you seem dead set on pointing out a flaw that is explained in the GB:ATC related book, while the Gozer situation was not. That's just you having a bit of double standards.
It's kind of a large flaw. I understand the reboot movie will have it's own logic but perhaps had the film been more clear on it being a parallel universe viewers wouldn't be asking for explanations months after the film came out. That's not a double standard, it's me wondering if the writers knew what they were doing and the answer to that is clear.
Really? None? Don't romanticize.
I can look at the comedy of an 80s film and find it funny, the humour in ATC drags pointlessly on and on. Do we need a three minute joke about a cat or putting a cut in a bag? It's a case of the writers getting too in love with their own dialogue but failing to step back and wonder how it would sound from someone else's point of view. Some restraint was needed.
It's a comedy, not Science Fiction.
The original Ghostbusters is labelled a comedy but I always found that incorrect. If anything it's a sci-fi fantasy comedy with elements of horror. I don't think Feig really was bothered with the sci-fi element.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4889990
Yet you seem dead set on pointing out a flaw that is explained in the GB:ATC related book, while the Gozer situation was not. That's just you having a bit of double standards.
It's kind of a large flaw. I understand the reboot movie will have it's own logic but perhaps had the film been more clear on it being a parallel universe viewers wouldn't be asking for explanations months after the film came out. That's not a double standard, it's me wondering if the writers knew what they were doing and the answer to that is clear.

And not explaining the defeat of Stay Puft, the ultimate evil, is not?

I mean, most people I have seen who have a problem with it are GBfans. Because ya know, why blow up ghosts if the original captured them?
Then these people dismiss this is a new world, with new rules, dimiss the explanation in the book, dismiss this actually also happens in the original movie and ghost are destroyed in the videogame, comics and cartoon.
We can disagree all you like, and the movie does not explain it, I'll give you that, but there actually exists an explanation for a plot point that is not even vital for the story, as all the ghosts get sucked back into the portal and Rowan is not destroyed but trapped back into the spiritworld.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4889991
The original Ghostbusters is labelled a comedy but I always found that incorrect.
It is correct, and what's wrong with it being a comedy? Of course, I'm not blind, I can see that Ghostbusters takes itself a bit more seriously than say, The Three Amigos (also a fun movie!). But some fans are so determined to play down the comedic aspect of Ghostbusters (of all things!) which I will never understand. They actually see "comedy" as a put down! Maybe some fans didn't recognize the humor when they were kids and just aren't used to thinking of it that way?
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4889999
The "Stay Puft Defense" that Alphagaia is using is flawed, it seems that anytime there's a legit complaint about the reboot there's always someone that compares it to the original while stating "see the original did the same thing so it's the same movie pretty much so stop being a troll." Stay Puft was made of marshmallow that was created by a demigod, Rowan was still in spectral form and turned into a giant ghost. How he was able to achieve that I have no idea because it wasn't explained. Gozer was at least a demigod and therefore metaphysical and not just a ghost. Rowan was just a ghost.

Aside from that, I think we can compare a majority of this film's problems with the same thing that happened with the Batman franchise. Joel Shumacher got total creative control with "Batman & Robin" and said "let's have fun with it!" while simultaneously shooting a toy commercial. We got the same thing with Paul Feig's Ghostbusters.
pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By timeware
#4890001
It's kind of a large flaw. I understand the reboot movie will have it's own logic but perhaps had the film been more clear on it being a parallel universe viewers wouldn't be asking for explanations months after the film came out. That's not a double standard, it's me wondering if the writers knew what they were doing and the answer to that is clear.
I can easily picture Feig dropping off Real Ghostbusters. 1 and 2 DVD's on Katies desk saying "Watch these then write the script" all I can seem to find is the transcript. (http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk ... sters-2016) I'm still waiting to get a look at the script which should solve our questions.
pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890002
The problem I have is there are explanations for the details of GB:ATC, but because these are not inserted into the movie they are dismissed, but when GB84 does the same thing it's suddenly OK while you make up your own explanation. We don't know what the difference between a ghost and a demigod is and we don't know if they can trap one. All we see is the GB trying and Gozer just vanishing instead of killing them by throwing them of the roof and closing the gate destroys Gozer. The reasons are never explained in the movie.
Both movies have more lore added to them via books etc to fill in those holes.
Why can we not accept this for both movies?

Though big Rowan is explained by showing (and a bit of tell) in the movie: he died at the hands of a huge machine on the crossing of two leylines.
We already see small machines conjure up class 4 ghosts on one ley line.
We also know electricity makes the ghosts stronger, as explained during the Mayhem bust, and Erin pleading to the mayor to cut the power. (Rowans portal is shown on time square, a place known for it's many lights, with the machines clearly visible hooked to the huge power supply of the hotel.)
Lastly Rowans GFOP book explains his ritual will make him huge and powerful enough to rule them all.
There is logic applied here, if you look for it.

Also, if you want an actual ghost, Vigo could not be captured as easily either.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890004
ATC is sketch comedy. Batman & Robin is a living cartoon done incorrectly.

I'm not going to debate the physics of a marshmellow. ;)
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4890007
Gozer wasn't a ghost though, it was a god in physical form. Gozer didn't get killed by the proton streams as the streams had no effect, the GBs thought that they won because Gozer disappeared. Gozer then reappeared in "the destructor" form as a Giant made of Marshmallow, the streams caught it on fire before they closed Gozer's gates while at the same time the explosion melted/destroyed Gozer (accidentally, might I add since the GBs were basically winging ideas to save the world, they didn't specifically make extra ghost-killing equipment) SINCE GOZER WAS NOW MADE OF MARSHMALLOW. Rowan wasn't a god and died becoming a ghost, the leylines weren't even activated until after he turned the machine back on letting the paranormal entities released, which activated the dimensional blending.

IT'S NOT THE SAME!!

Image
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4890009
Gozer wasn't a ghost though, it was a god in physical form
I thought Gozar was a man?
It's whatever it wants to be.

Including a giant made of marshmallow fluff.
pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890010
The problem I have with a giant made of marshmallow is that last time I checked, and I'm gonna check again soon with some added choco, marshmallow does not move on it's own. So yes, Gozer is using his powers to animate it, possessing it or whatever, we don't know. Point being it's not just marshmallow. Blowing Stay Puft up, however seems to destroy a demigod. Which is a class 7, according to the Tobins spirit guide, explaining that class can rule over ghosts and change form, and hey, Rowan becomes a class 7, and can change form, claiming he rules them all.

Just like Ivo Shandor was able to become a Destructor and change form in the videogame.

Also, the leylines were already active, as Patty mentions strange stuff was happening on that spot for decades, Rowan just supercharged it, to break the barrier.
User avatar
By devilmanozzy
#4890171
Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters II both have the same issue. As noted, it was never explained what happened to Gozer. Thanks to things like the video game and other add on stuff, we now have answers, but at the time of the films release, none were given.

More annoying though was the fate of Vigo. He was a ghost I assume, but the ending where he was blown into his painting which I guess was more than a painting. Maybe a portal? That ending made no sense. Look I'd rather hear how the sidearms worked in the film too. But acting like the first two films are perfect gems is quite off.

Also, in a previous argument on here at GBFans I was told their didn't need to show the evolution of the equipment in the 2016 film. Now everyone is demanding the sidearms be explained. Pick a side. I think some of the anti-Ghostbusters 2016 crowd need to at least get their arguments put together better if you'll are going to continue to march around Ghostbusters forums/comment threads and spew this black slime of hate for a film that was enjoyable for many of us. "I want my opinion heard!" "Don't silence me!" "I have a right to say I hate this film!" ... I have a right to love the same said film. Checkmate.
Alphagaia, JurorNo.2, Kingpin and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890177
I think some of the anti-Ghostbusters 2016 crowd need to at least get their arguments put together better if you'll are going to continue to march around Ghostbusters forums/comment threads and spew this black slime of hate for a film that was enjoyable for many of us.
Especially when half the arguments on social media are still "I haven't seen it, I just know I hate it, and you're stupid for liking it."
"I want my opinion heard!" "Don't silence me!" "I have a right to say I hate this film!"
They have a lot of nerve claiming to be victims.
But acting like the first two films are perfect gems is quite off.
Agreed. And it's silly that fans think the first two films have to be seen as so perfect anyway (especially in order to put another movie down).
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890178
Well, in a way they are victims. All they wanted was a sequel.
Going into full blown hate modus for anything else and swamping the forums with it, however... yeah that's a bit much.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890180
Well, in a way they are victims. All they wanted was a sequel. Going into full blown hate modus for anything else and swamping the forums with it, however... yeah that's a bit much.
After this year, my sympathy is all but gone, lol.
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4890226
Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters II both have the same issue. As noted, it was never explained what happened to Gozer. Thanks to things like the video game and other add on stuff, we now have answers, but at the time of the films release, none were given.

More annoying though was the fate of Vigo. He was a ghost I assume, but the ending where he was blown into his painting which I guess was more than a painting. Maybe a portal? That ending made no sense. Look I'd rather hear how the sidearms worked in the film too. But acting like the first two films are perfect gems is quite off.

Also, in a previous argument on here at GBFans I was told their didn't need to show the evolution of the equipment in the 2016 film. Now everyone is demanding the sidearms be explained. Pick a side. I think some of the anti-Ghostbusters 2016 crowd need to at least get their arguments put together better if you'll are going to continue to march around Ghostbusters forums/comment threads and spew this black slime of hate for a film that was enjoyable for many of us. "I want my opinion heard!" "Don't silence me!" "I have a right to say I hate this film!" ... I have a right to love the same said film. Checkmate.
GB2 has it's faults I'll admit, but it was established that Gozer took the form of the destructor as Stay-Puft, and that form was blown up/melted after they closed the gates. Gozer was a god in physical form (as well as the terror dogs), they didn't pass through walls or float around like the other ghosts, therefore their physical forms could be destroyed.

Rowan was just a basement dwelling nerd that killed himself and all of a sudden he was a powerful ghost that time-lapsed Time Square and turned into a giant monster crushing buildings.

I don't care how you spin it, it's not the same.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890227
Explain Ivo Shandors ghost transforming into a Destructor then.

If he can become a god by charging mandallas and attract spiritual energy via buildings, so can others by charging a machine to attract spiritual energy and charging ley lines.

It's the same thing.
Kingpin liked this
User avatar
By timeware
#4890229
I do have to agree with Alpha on this and it's rare that we agree on anything.
http://ghostbusters.wikia.com/wiki/Ivo_Shandor
that being said though Rowan was a direct copy off the video game plot line. Building the machine, setting up distractions etc.
It was lazy script writing and i'm betting why we cant read the script is because it's a chaotic mess.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890231
I don't think Feig and Katy actually knew of the videogame existing, and after eons of ghoststories via cartoons and comics, I think it's very hard to think up a villain that has not been done before in some way. For me the scripts does not feel lazy though, as it is packed with some nice showdowns, new characters and Erins motivation gives it a nice spin toward proving ghost exist instead of making money of it, but I get you guys will always find something new to nitpick (the movie sadly isn't perfect, so there is always something to disagree on). I do agree the movie could have gotten a better villain.

From a story standpoint Rowan feels very underdeveloped and I do wish they had given him a bit more to do. The extended version fixes this to some degree, but he never gets as great as Vigo. For me Vigo is the best villain with the best lines but with a weak end fight. Once you seem him in full form with the weird shadowsversions following him it felt very dissapointing.
To contrast this Gozer had a great end battle and a great presence during her huge jumps and teleports, but has no presence whatsoever in the rest of the GB1.
Rowan does get better when he dies, but the ending feels very by the numbers, with what could have been a great cat and mouse game and I wish a little more was done with the possesions. Destroying the packs was a smart idea, but it does not hinder the busters at all as they show up with new packs in what seems seconds. Maybe them relying on the (untested) secondaries would have been better with only Erin having a full pack as she took one to show to her former employee. Ah well.
User avatar
By timeware
#4890232
I'm not so sure they didn't know about the VG. Katie being around our age it's possible her friends might have mentioned it in passing knowing she was working on the script. Its obvious she'd borrowed ideas from the Real Ghostusters. Destroying the packs is an idea straight out of the boogeyman episode.

I like to read movie scripts. I find it unusual that it hasn't been made available yet.
i would have preferred a longer running time to have prevented reshoots, and cutting of scenes. I would have also been willing to wait another couple years for a good script instead of Sony wanting this rushed out.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4890239
Just curious as I don't read that many current scripts, on average how long would you say it takes for a movie script to be released?
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By timeware
#4890248
Just curious as I don't read that many current scripts, on average how long would you say it takes for a movie script to be released?
http://www.imsdb.com/

I think it varies. Sometimes right before movie release or a little after. Usually IMSDB is good about being current, and they actually have the script to Were chicken on their site.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890254
Just curious as I don't read that many current scripts, on average how long would you say it takes for a movie script to be released?
http://www.imsdb.com/

I think it varies. Sometimes right before movie release or a little after. Usually IMSDB is good about being current, and they actually have the script to Were chicken on their site.
With 'a little after' meaning the script of Star Wars The Force Awakens, a little over a year old movie, is labeled as a new release. The Reverant seems just out there as well.
I also see La La Land to put their 'script release time frame' a bit more in a positive perspective, but 'a little after' does seem to have a lot of variance in this instance.

So Timeware finding it unusual the GB:ATC script is nowhere to be seen yet, is actually not that unusual.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4890267
Yeah, I read part of GBII on their site. Good database. Kind of odd they have Were Chicken, but not Ghostbusters, and instead just GBII.
By pferreira1983
#4890287
I mean, most people I have seen who have a problem with it are GBfans. Because ya know, why blow up ghosts if the original captured them?
The problem with ATC is that it plays fast and loose with it's own logic. I think anyone who saw the original will wonder why ghosts are shredded to pieces and not captured when watching ATC. A ghost is a supernatural form, it is already dead, you cannot shred and dismember it. I don't know why I bother... :(
It is correct, and what's wrong with it being a comedy?
Nah it's not really a comedy, at least not in the purest form. There's too much sci-fi fantasy and horror for Ghostbusters to be just a comedy. That would be like calling Back to the Future just a comedy. It's not. Both movies are exactly the same in that case. My interests don't hone in on pure comedies. My favourite movies ever have been ones that contain a huge dollop of comedy along with sci-fi and fantasy.
The "Stay Puft Defense" that Alphagaia is using is flawed, it seems that anytime there's a legit complaint about the reboot there's always someone that compares it to the original while stating "see the original did the same thing so it's the same movie pretty much so stop being a troll."
Couldn't agree more. It's like Alpha trying to defend the rubbishness of The Force Awakens by comparing it's flaws to a A New Hope.
Joel Shumacher got total creative control with "Batman & Robin" and said "let's have fun with it!" while simultaneously shooting a toy commercial. We got the same thing with Paul Feig's Ghostbusters.
This is inaccurate. Schumacher was told by Warner Bros to target the film towards making toy sales. He would have been happier to do a more dark take on the franchise and was going to before the plug was pulled on Batman Triumphant.
ATC is sketch comedy. Batman & Robin is a living cartoon done incorrectly.
Yeah but ATC is a very expensive and awful sketch comedy.
Well, in a way they are victims. All they wanted was a sequel.
Going into full blown hate modus for anything else and swamping the forums with it, however... yeah that's a bit much.
The people who just wanted a sequel and not a lesson in feminism have a right to be annoyed. I don't agree with those who sent death threats and racial abuse towards the people involved with the film.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890292
Nah it's not really a comedy, at least not in the purest form. There's too much sci-fi fantasy and horror for Ghostbusters to be just a comedy.
I don't understand this "just a comedy" mentality. Calling a movie a comedy isn't a put down.
Yeah but ATC is a very expensive and awful sketch comedy.
Could not disagree more. :)
The people who just wanted a sequel and not a lesson in feminism have a right to be annoyed.
Not if they're so paranoid they see "lessons in feminism" behind every corner.
devilmanozzy liked this
User avatar
By timeware
#4890299
When you have the director that continues to promote the Libral brand of feminism, and not vet people he tweets that he thinks is awesome it's kind of a repetitive.

He made no statements in defending women that marched in the pro life rally. The media did attack them and he was no where to be found on that issue. Same with Ghostbuster fans. He could have stepped up here. He certainly found time to tweet the women's march.
  • 1
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
[SPOILERS] NEW GB MOVIE SUMMER 2020!

I had this idea, but of course its just going of[…]

Hello from Washington State!

There's a few of us!

Dan Schoening finished pencils on TF/GB #5. https[…]

Please help! Does anyone know whether Anovos are s[…]