# Was Ghostbusters 2 a good film? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 4, 2015, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-ghostbusters-2-a-good-film/729938 "2015-09-04T20:57:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Push\_You\_Down](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/push_you_down/32/9095_2.png) [@Push\_You\_Down](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Push_You_Down)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-ghostbusters-2-a-good-film/729938/81 "2015-09-09T22:19:09Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > The slapdash nature of the script is evident in many ways. A few that come readily to mind: > > 1. (As I previously mentioned.) They made Lewis a lawyer with a night school degree. They wanted to have a trial, the GBs needed a lawyer, “Hey, let’s give it to Rick. Rick’ll play anything.” > > 2. The mass amnesia of the city to forget about the paranormal effects and the saving the day of the first movie. > > 3. Janine was jonesin’ for Egon in the first movie. But now she’s hot of Lewis? No one’s hot for Lewis.😉 > > 4. The convolutions necessary to bring Dana back, and with a kid no less. _And_ have Dana and Peter restart. > > 5. Big time symphony musician Dana is now a low end art restorer at a museum. > > Some things you have to accept, e.g., that Dana and her kid are involved in Yet Another Paranormal Doomsday Event. That’s how fictional stories are done. > > But there’s just too much other cruft that clogs up the movie and is just plain lazy and poorly thought out writing. > > BTW: It’s “II”, not “2”. Meh. The economy of characters makes the script more streamlined. They need a lawyer character–why waste the opportunity to reuse a liked character in a new way? Janine is hot for Egon… Egon isn’t interested, she gets interested in the likable schlub in her periphery. Is that unrealistic? The city didn’t forget the GBs saved the day… they thanked them and then sent them a bill for the damage that the GBs were kind of responsible for. We have someone in this thread relate a real life example of an acquaintance heading the same route as Dana. It’s not crazy. I don’t know about the 80s but today even major city philharmonic members have side jobs. I do think they should have made Vigo’s interest in Oscar stem from the fact that he sprung from a once demon/ghost/old god-infested womb. That somehow made him a better host. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-ghostbusters-2-a-good-film/729938/82 "2015-09-10T00:34:17Z")
Was Ghostbusters 2 a good film? Pure Rubbish ---
**Author:** ![Gretchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8edcca/32.png) [@Gretchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gretchion)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-ghostbusters-2-a-good-film/729938/83 "2015-09-10T02:09:57Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > The slapdash nature of the script is evident in many ways. A few that come readily to mind: > > 1. (As I previously mentioned.) They made Lewis a lawyer with a night school degree. They wanted to have a trial, the GBs needed a lawyer, “Hey, let’s give it to Rick. Rick’ll play anything.” > > 2. The mass amnesia of the city to forget about the paranormal effects and the saving the day of the first movie. > > 3. Janine was jonesin’ for Egon in the first movie. But now she’s hot of Lewis? No one’s hot for Lewis.😉 > > 4. The convolutions necessary to bring Dana back, and with a kid no less. _And_ have Dana and Peter restart. > > 5. Big time symphony musician Dana is now a low end art restorer at a museum. > > Some things you have to accept, e.g., that Dana and her kid are involved in Yet Another Paranormal Doomsday Event. That’s how fictional stories are done. > > But there’s just too much other cruft that clogs up the movie and is just plain lazy and poorly thought out writing. > > BTW: It’s “II”, not “2”. I actually agree with all your points. Those were things that bothered me as well. I still enjoy the movie as a cheesy guilty pleasure, but you’re absolutely right, thosr are lazy choices. Maybe they should have gotten John Candy to play their lawyer, since he was originally going to play Lewis in the first movie. I could see him playing a bumbling lawyer just as well as Moranis. I didn’t care for the changes to Janine. I liked her better as the snarky librarian type who was into Egon. I also didn’t care for Egon, as he wasn’t as Vulcan-like as he was in the first movie. I’m not sure if that was supposed to be character development, or the fact that Ramis didn’t care enough to be true to the character. Agreed on bringing Dana back as the victim again. Of course, she could have still been in the movie, but we needed a new victim, possibly a love interest for Ray this time? And I always thought they missed a good opportunity for a nice throwback to the first movie. When they first met Vigo and Ray demands he return to the painting, Vigo should have smugly asked if Ray was a god. Ray would glance at Winston, then back to Vigo and say “Yes”. I realize none of these would have made it a great movie, but maybe it could have been a little less bad. ---
**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:** [September 14, 2015, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-ghostbusters-2-a-good-film/729938/84 "2015-09-14T01:28:15Z")
> [@Push\_You\_Down](#): > > The city didn’t forget the GBs saved the day… they thanked them and then sent them a bill for the damage that the GBs were kind of responsible for. Yes, they did, because they acted like no one believed in ghosts. They weren’t treated as heroes by the vast majority of people who didn’t require them to pay a thing. They made it sound like everyone thought they were still kooky frauds. That makes no sense! It’s one of the many ways the cartoon series improved on it. They weren’t exactly heroes, but I don’t remember anyone not believing in ghosts, outside of maybe when they accidentally captured the Dickensian Ghosts of Christmas. Maybe there’d be an isolated character, but not pretty much the whole city. Heck, they had a domesticated ghost on hand to show them! I said I saw the movies as being about the same, but that was the one thing that I remember bugging the crap out of me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-ghostbusters-2-a-good-film/729938.md?page=4)