Wow, I’m surprised at the overwhelmingly negative reaction to it. I’ve always thought of it as being that rare sequel that actually was able to improve upon on the original. I liked the original, but felt that with the characters and situations and technology already established it allowed the sequel’s comedy to be less expositional and more organic.
This. Except, that it sucked a bit more than the general run of sequels.
I don’t know about the reboot, but, I know one thing: Do NOT piss off Ron Jeremy!!!:eek:
Actually, if the baby was the child of Dana and Lewis (conceived under the influence of Zuul), it would make a certain amount of sense that the child would be especially suitable as a vessel for Vigo.
Oscar was played by John Denver’s nephew by the way http://showbizgeek.com/what-ever-happened-to-the-baby-from-ghostbusters-2/
The whole movie was worth it for when Peter asks Janosz about his accent.
“Where are you from?”
“The upper vest side.”
Classic!
“OH, COMMAND ME LORD!”
“A child… a child… a child?!” ZAP! “Whoooo-hoooo-hooooo!” “…a child!”
Peter MacNicol played a better Renfield in GB2 than he did playing the actual Renfield in Mel Brooks’ awful Dracula: Dead and Loving It.
I’ve always been curious as to what people want out of a sequel to Ghostbusters. I definitely agree the sequel is not as good as the first, but I’m glad they at least tried. I wanted to see the continuing adventures of the characters, and I felt the concept of the original lent itself towards having a series.
Yes, I know there was the cartoon series, which was okay. But James Bond didn’t get one movie then a cartoon show. Mission Impossible didn’t get one movie then a cartoon show. They keep cranking movies out for both, and apparently people love them (I’ve never been a fan myself, but I understand the appeal).
So, what did you want to see them do with a Ghostbusters movie franchise?
They didn’t. They really, really didn’t. And that was the problem.
A plot that wasn’t exactly the same as the first one? Might be a good start.
Really, Blues Brothers 2000 is probably the best comparison–both feel like very poor remakes more than sequels per se. I believe that good sequels typically deepen and expand the universe of the first film; Ghostbusters II did neither.
What would happen in the modern world after a large-scale supernatural event was witnessed across the globe? What is the relationship between the ordinary, everyday world we inhabit vs. the world of gods, demons and so forth? It’s pretty rich with storytelling potential. None of that was explored.
I enjoyed it for what it was. Although I was a lot older than 8 when I saw it, I’m with percypercy upthread - Vigo’s forehead freaked me out more than a little bit.
Sometimes it’s just nice to have the gang back together to do some shit. I’m of the opinion that the universe is expanding much too fast as it is, and speeding up even as I type.
It wasn’t just the way they repeated the plot. Or even the way they ignored/retconned away the ending of the first in order to do so. It was also the smarmy jingoism of the ending and its complete implausibility within the rules of the universe they’d established. But most of all, for me, it was the way they cheapened the characters. Jeneane was one of the most likable characters in the first, and her relationship with Egon was a small emotional touch point throughout the movie, and they threw all that away and turned her into a characature who had nothing in common with the original portrayal. Same with Louis and Dana: they were treated as mere pegs to be slotted into any vaguely appropriate role. Need an artistic female character? Use Dana, because art restoration is basically the same as concert musicianship, right? We have a role for a nebbishy lawyer. Louis was an accountant; the audience will never notice the difference! They didn’t give any consideration to what was believable or emotionally compelling for the characters as people. It was lazy writing that insults the audience.
I know it’s a comedy, and funny trumps logical, but it wasn’t that funny. And the cartoon showed that it wasn’t necessary. They made changes to the characters and their world that mostly felt at least somewhat organic, and they acknowledged the differences from the movie in some pretty sophisticated and clever ways. (Until the second movie came out, and they decided to imitate its lightweight, kiddy-driven direction.)
I never watched the cartoon. 
You guys are ruining my childhood!!
Maybe that’s one of the reasons why so many people hated it though. While the original had more adult themes and was a little scarier, perhaps the sequel suffered from catering too much to a “broader” audience, but keeping the same formula.
It sounds like you ruined your own childhood, then! 
The ending was smarmy, but I think you’d be hard pressed to show it was jingoistic. The Statue of Liberty was pretty clearly chosen as a reminder to New Yorkers that they can be good and decent to each other, not as a symbol of American might. Add to that songs about love lifting people higher and not forgetting old friends- doesn’t leave much room for America: Fuck Yeah!
Or does it? How do you see it as jingoism?
This is why I liked 2 more than the original.
Dan Aykroyd came up with the original Ghostbusters because he has a lot of fringe interests and beliefs. His original story was much darker and much more focused on the occult and spirituality. Once Reitman and Ramis got a hold of it they toned that way down and, IMO, made it the success it was. There’s one scene in the original towards the end where Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson are in the GB mobile and have a short but serious discussion about religious concepts and dogma. I felt it was probably the only thing from Aykroyd’s original script that they kept in. And it brings the movie to a screeching halt. You can’t have a scene like that in a film who’s ultimate villain was a giant marshmallow man*!*
No offense to Aykroyd and the others, but without Bill Murray starring (and Reitman & Ramis behind the scenes) GB would never have been a hit. It was Caddyshack, not The Exorcist.
Jingoism probably wasn’t the right word: it wasn’t promoting American belligerence. But it was taking a symbol often used to represent America and Americanism and identifying it with goodness in all its forms. It felt very glurgey and patriotic in the worst way. Maybe it had a different resonance in NYC, but even if so, it still seems rather shallow.
I agree with almost all of this except the first sentence (obviously). Apparently Ackroyd still isn’t convinced Ghostbusters wasn’t a documentary, or at least hard science fiction. But there’s nothing about a comedy that means it can’t have a fully developed world with consistent rules for it to explore.
That conversation in the car did feel out of place, but it also served to raise the stakes somewhat and make the whole thing a bit scarier. I’m honestly not sure if the movie would be improved by cutting it or not.
Right, but that film was already made. It was called Ghostbusters, and it was fantastic. You just can’t do the same thing twice and expect audiences to be happy about it.
(FWIW, I think Stripes is a better comparison than Caddyshack, but anyway…)
That’s not to say it has to be The Exorcist. It should still be an irreverent comedy at heart, but it also has to offer more than the first film. The groundwork was already laid; the next step is to build upon that a real mythology. It really is the only way forward if you want a successful fantasy franchise.
MyFootzzz Watch The Real Ghostbusters cartoon! I acknowledge that most Saturday morning cartoons are crap ( I enjoy them. But, they’re crap). The Ghostbusters cartoon was very much not crap. It had excellent writing, believable and coherent plots, believable and well developed characters, bits that were genuinely scary and sometimes it tackled complicated topics.