no, that exchange definitely belongs. 'cos you know that if something like that was to happen in the real world, there would be a ton of debate and fighting over whether it was the End Times, or something else.
“Ray, has it ever occurred to you that the reason we’ve been so busy lately is because the dead have been rising from their graves?”
Yeah, you’ree probably right. I’m not convinced either way, but Ernie Hudson sells that line!
Actually, now that I think about it, you are right. The movie needed that or some other line to acknowledge that within the story ghosts went from something rare and disbelieved in to something everyone seemed to be seeing and acknowledging (and also to foreshadow Gozer’s arrival). The movie would have worked without it, but it would have been a loose thread. Paying attention to that sort of detail is what made the first movie so successful and the second so disappointing. It’s generally (though not always) the mark of a good comedy that even when it’s not being serious, it takes itself seriously. Ghostbusters did. Ghostbusters 2 did not.
not as good as “If there’s a steady paycheck in it, I’ll believe anything you say.”
He was terribly underutilized in that movie, wasn’t he. I always thought he did such a good job with what little they gave him that she should have gone on to bigger things. I just found this article about how he feels about the whole thing.
He sounds like a stand-up guy and a real trooper. Although what choice does he have? Lashing out, however justifiably, would only make him look petty. Still, others have burned bridges or refused interviews over much less, so I admire his willingness to reflect openly on the whole thing without badmouthing anyone.
Not to dog pile on with what others have said, but the religious connotation of the scene with Ray and Winston in the Ecto-1 also helps set up the “Dogs and cats, living together!” speech later on which really pulls the movie together.
Well, the first season and the Saturday morning syndicated ones are. Avoid any that have Dave Coulier as the voice of Venkman.
This. Too much this.
It’s alright at best. I enjoyed it far more as a kid, and I haven’t watched it in a while, but I don’t think it’s the pile of crap that many people seem to. It’s vastly inferior to the first movie, being mostly just being a worse do-over of the first movie’s plot. Still, it had some good moments and I did like Vigo as the villain.
Not sure one known instance counts as conventional, but I actually met someone who basically does this. She was an acquaintance of mine, and when I met her she mentioned that she did that for a living. She even made the parallel to Ghostbusters 2 to clarify her job duties.
…I liked it.
Although the side-lining of Winston in the 2nd act is really bizarre, He’s not even in the courtroom ghost fight.
Oh poop. It’s not on Netflix.
I would think Dave Coulier would be a red flag.
If I recall correctly, Winston isn’t part of the video game right away either. Funny that they do that.
A ton of them are available on YouTube.
Thanks!
Fun fact: Aykroyd personally designed and built the proton packs seen in the film.
No word whether he ever attempted to make them functional…
I think a big part of what makes Ghostbusters work is that the setting is very serious and played almost completely straight - it’s just that the characters dealing with it are screwballs. None of the ghost/monster related gags rely on the ghost/monster doing something ridiculous. Even the marshmallow man is largely taken seriously by the narrative. Sure, he looks goofy (and that’s a direct consequence of a decision made by one of the goofy protagonists) but once it’s out there stepping on churches, the film treats it as a serious threat. They don’t make it sprout advertising slogans, or give it some sort of marshmallow-related superpowers. It’s a big, scary monster that just happens to look like a corporate mascot.
Details like the conversation between Ray and Winston in the car, or the background details on Ivo Shandor and his art deco doomsday cult, really help sell the setting as genuinely scary, despite the antics of the clowns who are trying to stop it. A big part of what makes the comedy work so well is the way it exists in tension with the genuine horror elements of the story. Taking away those elements would make the movie overall - and the comedy in particular - less effective.
Yeah, you gotta stick to the ones with Lorenzo Music as the voice of Peter Venkman!
My friends and I watched The Real Ghostbusters cartoon religiously during college–the version that was syndicated on weekday afternoons. It was really surprisingly well done, for what it was. Like Miller mentioned in regard to the first film, the cartoon series worked because it played most of the “horror”/ghost elements straight. It also did clever parodies of things as diverse as Star Trek, Lovecraft’s Cthulhu Mythos, and the Phantom of the Opera.
Avoid any episodes that have the title Slimer! and the Real Ghostbusters. Not at ALL the same thing!
OK, I get what everyone is saying. A sequel should raise the stakes, not just be the continuing adventures of our heroes.
Nobody has addressed my comparison to the Bond movies. Now, forgive my ignorance, as I am not knowledgeable on that series. Did each 007 movie raise the stakes? There are a lot of movies in that series, and I always assumed it was just the continuing adventures of James Bond.
Gretch, No. Sadly some Bond movies sucked ass at points (The “Christmas Song” in HMSS, the giddy coke infested stupidity of the writing of the Rodger Moore movies (beyond LALD) and the cutesy dinner party ending of TLD and the out and out
“Lets Write A Really Bad Miami Vice Script” for LTK are examples most of us like to [del]turn the channel when on[/del] forget.
Brosnan brought it back and in style… Craig is/was keeping it fun… BUT… you asked in comparison… so here’s the comparison.
Gretch, Bond was 4 movies deep, each better than the last, before LALD; 5 before TMWTGG where plots started to get Truly Stupid. Ghost Busters had ONE good movie. One.
The second movie looked like it was made at gun point having been reshaped by every ignorant hack in LA who never got enough “Lets Squish The Play-Doh” time as a kid. In order for 3 to be a hit, Ivan Reitman not only has to hit a Homerun,
he needs to point the bat and call which fence its going over.
I say that and I actually Like Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig. Nobody likes being the parent who has to say, “Look, you better turn off those damn cartoons and feed that turtle or its going to die” but somebody has to say something.
I’m saying people, you really need to step up, front office to back lot. Because if you don’t turn off that damn smoke-up-the-ass machine and feed that franchise, its going to die.
I’m also cautiously optimistic about the reboot. I wasn’t excited when I first heard about the idea, but I’ve liked Paul Feig’s other movies, and the cast is great. I’m hoping it will be good.
But James Bond is a spy who travels all over the world. He can hunt and kill bad guys, even lots of them, but a lot of the world isn’t affected. He can burn down an eco-hotel in Quantum of Solace, but that would be just a blip on the news for most of the world. Events affect him, and Bond can be affected, but it’s not a problem for a new movie to start up with new locations and new villains and new adventures.
But, in the first Ghostbusters movie, the Ghostbusters team saved the world. A god of destruction tried to end the world, and a giant Stay Puft Marshmallow Man attacked the city. This should have been a world-changing event. This would have been like 9/11, except with 9/11 there had been terrorists in our world before who had caused terrible things, but I don’t believe that it was widely known that there were ghosts and evil gods in their world.
But instead of there now being a big Department of Homeland Paranormal Security, and there being tons of Ghostbusters being trained, the team was sued by the city and not able to run their business anymore. It makes zero sense. It would have made a little more sense if they had an incident at the beginning of the movie, where they are chasing ghosts and seriously screw things up and are sued or banned. Or if there’s some force or organization that made everyone forget what the Ghostbusters did. But there’s no explanation like that here.
There are just a lot of things that don’t make sense. Like why is Winston not with the team, and is only a Ghostbuster when they get arrested? Why do the people of New York cheer for the Statue of Liberty going through the streets, instead of running in terror like anyone would do when a giant statue is walking around? Even if it’s a benevolent statue, that’s still terrifying. Why did they change the Ghostbusters symbol to have a 2 on it in the movie?
I recently listened to the episode of the Podcast We Hate Movies where they go into this. It’s a funny podcast, where they break down bad movies, and they go into depth on everything that’s wrong with Ghostbusters 2.
The slapdash nature of the script is evident in many ways. A few that come readily to mind:
(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.”
The mass amnesia of the city to forget about the paranormal effects and the saving the day of the first movie.
Janine was jonesin’ for Egon in the first movie. But now she’s hot of Lewis? No one’s hot for Lewis.
The convolutions necessary to bring Dana back, and with a kid no less. And have Dana and Peter restart.
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”.