# Ghostbusters (2016) is super awesome! (spoilers) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Tags:** movies\ **Created:** [July 15, 2016, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965 "2016-07-15T09:21:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/242 "2017-08-11T02:31:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Lamia** : > > This is actually almost verbatim what was going through my head when I wrote that post. Ah, I hadn’t realized that you were of the sort who would feel the same, er, entertainment, from Ms. McKinnon. ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/243 "2017-08-11T02:57:52Z")
I’m pretty sure _everyone_ is thus entertained by Kate McKinnon, regardless of other entertainment preferences. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/244 "2017-08-11T15:06:54Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Ah, I hadn’t realized that you were of the sort who would feel the same, er, entertainment, from Ms. McKinnon. > [@Kamino\_Neko](#): > > I’m pretty sure _everyone_ is thus entertained by Kate McKinnon, regardless of other entertainment preferences. Elsewhere on the Internet I’ve seen some debate as to whether in the movie Holtzmann (McKinnon) was flirting with Erin (Wiig). Personally, I like to think she was flirting with _all of us_. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/245 "2017-08-12T16:53:51Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > It would have to be Venkman’s son or something because it would not make sense at all for the Venkman of the first movie to be concerned about something as square as unprofitability. Oh, I very much disagree. Peter Venkman’s defining personality trait is “venal douchebag.” He falsifies experimental results so he can get in a co-eds pants. He takes arguably the single most important scientific/metaphysical discovery in history, and immediately thinks, “How can I monetize this?” He’s money savvy enough to talk Ray into taking all the financial risk on their new business venture. He soaks the manager of the hotel where they bust their first ghost. Anyway, if you still think I’m wrong on my read of his character, there’s also a thirty year gap between movies. People can change a lot in three decades. Hell, it only took two for the peace and love generation to turn into Gordon Gecko. Turning from [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ohlA__xABw) into [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je4QCA5KCuc) is a much less dramatic about-face. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2017, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/246 "2017-08-12T19:38:47Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Oh, I very much disagree. Peter Venkman’s defining personality trait is “venal douchebag.” He falsifies experimental results so he can get in a co-eds pants. He takes arguably the single most important scientific/metaphysical discovery in history, and immediately thinks, “How can I monetize this?” He’s money savvy enough to talk Ray into taking all the financial risk on their new business venture. He soaks the manager of the hotel where they bust their first ghost. > > Anyway, if you still think I’m wrong on my read of his character, there’s also a thirty year gap between movies. People can change a lot in three decades. Hell, it only took two for the peace and love generation to turn into Gordon Gecko. Turning from [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ohlA__xABw) into [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je4QCA5KCuc) is a much less dramatic about-face. FWIW I agree with you about Venkman, but since Bill Murray was [reportedly uninterested](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters_(franchise)#Ghostbusters_3) in reprising the character except maybe as a minor role then this hypothetical _Ghostbusters III_ probably would have needed Venkman Jr. as the CEO anyway. I haven’t dug into the details, but some version of a _[Ghostbusters III](http://ghostbusters.wikia.com/wiki/Ghostbusters_III)_ was in the works for about 20 years and at least three scripts were written before the decision to do a reboot. (According to the link, one of these abandoned sequels would have been about a new group of younger Ghostbusters that took over from the original team.) So while it’s possible to conceive of a good _Ghostbusters III_, in the real world it apparently wasn’t easily done as a sequel repeatedly failed to get off the ground over a period of many years. IMHO a reboot was the right choice, but the 2016 movie featured so many callbacks to the original (including cameos by most of the original stars) that it wasn’t really starting over with a clean slate. Although for the most part I thought the callbacks were fun, the new movie arguably would have been a better standalone film had there been less of that sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2017, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/247 "2017-08-12T19:48:45Z")
actually dan’s said the script that was supposed to be the official ghostbusters 3 was the one used for the activision xbox 360 game … ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2017, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/248 "2017-08-13T00:27:53Z")
> [@nightshadea](#): > > actually dan’s said the script that was supposed to be the official ghostbusters 3 was the one used for the activision xbox 360 game … It’s a neat game and the actors do a good job, but it would have been a disappointing Ghostbusters 3. Most of its charm and appeal come from the fact that it is as close to a third movie we’ll ever get. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2017, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/249 "2017-08-13T12:25:35Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > … He soaks the manager of the hotel where they bust their first ghost. Wrong Ghostbuster. He’s following the [finger signs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A10tIKDLTw) of Spengler. (These signs weren’t visible in some showings on 4:3 SD TVs back in the day.) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2017, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/250 "2017-08-13T13:46:38Z")
I haven’t seen the movie. It lost my interest when I saw the effects, and then nothing anyone said after watching it convinced me to want to see it. But I did watch the review. If they were running jokes into the ground by running at the mouth without allowing any comedic beats to actually hit, as indicated in the review, then I have to agree with the question. What in the world was funny? It seemed funny in an Annoying Orange way. Just run your mouths off. Yes, I know he started putting clips of audio on top of other clips, to humorously exaggerate the effect. But was he wrong in those scenes? Were those scenes atypical and only used sparingly in a way that they worked with the full context? Or do you just actually find that sort of motormouth humor to be funny? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2017, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/251 "2017-08-13T16:13:04Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > IMHO a reboot was the right choice, but the 2016 movie featured so many callbacks to the original (including cameos by most of the original stars) that it wasn’t really starting over with a clean slate. Although for the most part I thought the callbacks were fun, the new movie arguably would have been a better standalone film had there been less of that sort of thing. I don’t think there is an argument at all. They crammed in way too many callbacks and cameos. The movie could have been good if they wrote actual jokes rather than figuring out where to stick Winston or the marshmallow man. I watched it in the theater with my daughter. Enjoyed it well enough when I saw it but I have no desire to see it again. I’ve seen the original more times than I can count. When I heard the sequel was cancelled I was disappointed because I thought it had potential and maybe they could have gotten it right the next time. ETA to clarify I also thought the callbacks and cameos were fun but they mostly weren’t funny, took up way too much of the movie, and took me right out of the film “Hey its Dan Ackroyd!” ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/252 "2017-08-13T17:10:24Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I haven’t seen the movie. It lost my interest when I saw the effects, and then nothing anyone said after watching it convinced me to want to see it. But I did watch the review. > > If they were running jokes into the ground by running at the mouth without allowing any comedic beats to actually hit, as indicated in the review, then I have to agree with the question. What in the world was funny? It seemed funny in an Annoying Orange way. Just run your mouths off. > > Yes, I know he started putting clips of audio on top of other clips, to humorously exaggerate the effect. But was he wrong in those scenes? Were those scenes atypical and only used sparingly in a way that they worked with the full context? > > Or do you just actually find that sort of motormouth humor to be funny? I don’t know. Generally, I find out what I find funny when I find myself laughing. I haven’t ever really sat down and compiled a list of things that I find funny, or that it’s OK to find funny, or that are suitably high-brow enough to not feel guilty about finding them funny. I don’t see what purpose that would serve other than shackling myself into just finding the same limited number of things funny. So, in general, if I want to find out whether I find a movie funny, I just, you know, watch it. Afterwards, I’ll know! ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/253 "2017-08-13T17:31:52Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I don’t think there is an argument at all. They crammed in way too many callbacks and cameos. The movie could have been good if they wrote actual jokes rather than figuring out where to stick Winston or the marshmallow man. […] When I heard the sequel was cancelled I was disappointed because I thought it had potential and maybe they could have gotten it right the next time. Yeah, I had also thought that a sequel would likely be less weighted down with callbacks to the original (and presumably no one would have felt obligated to cram in a bunch of callbacks to _Ghostbusters II_) and could do its own thing a little more. I liked the cast and the characters and would have been happy to see them have another adventure. Then again, this franchise has already produced one disappointing sequel, and it may be that the basic Ghostbusters premise doesn’t lend itself well to movie sequels. In a serial format then you can follow a Monster of the Week formula (that’s basically what _The Real Ghostbusters_ did, and I assume _Extreme Ghostbusters_ although I never saw it), which may eventually get old but can be entertaining for a long time if done well. > [@](#): > > ETA to clarify I also thought the callbacks and cameos were fun but they mostly weren’t funny, took up way too much of the movie, and took me right out of the film “Hey its Dan Ackroyd!” When I first saw the movie, through most of it I was thinking “I don’t know why people said there were too many callbacks to the original, it seems fine to me.” Then when Dan Ackroyd showed up, I went “Oh. I get it now.” Nothing against Ackroyd, it was just clunky. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/254 "2017-08-13T18:41:02Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Wrong Ghostbuster. > > He’s following the [finger signs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A10tIKDLTw) of Spengler. (These signs weren’t visible in some showings on 4:3 SD TVs back in the day.) I’m aware of the gag. I don’t think it changes my argument. When they need someone to sweet talk a mark out of his wallet, it’s Venkman who does it. Egon is feeding him cues because Venkman is a terrible scientist who doesn’t really know what their equipment does or how much it costs to maintain - not because Egon’s really the guy who’s all about the dollars. That said, I’ve always felt that scene would be a little funnier if Peter doubled all the numbers Egon fed to him. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2021, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965/255 "2021-12-23T20:40:43Z")
The Forgettening continues: > **[Paul Feig Calls Out Sony for Not Including 2016 ‘Ghostbusters’ Film in...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/paul-feig-calls-out-sony-ghostbusters-1235066671/amp/)** > > The studio is releasing a 'Ghostbusters Ultimate Collection' gift set timed to Jason Reitman's recent film sequel. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghostbusters-2016-is-super-awesome-spoilers/759965.md?page=12)