The Ghostbusters Thread (Old, New, Animated, Whatever)

[Rotollo]

So I pretty much done all the main shit for the series, GB 1 and 2 and the game, I think I read the "total containment" tome from the IDW comics as well. which as a side note, after reading their 5 arch run on BttF and the one GB arch, IDW can do some amazing shit
so anyone got any good recommendations for later archs or the animated shows for ghostbusters since I didnt really dip my toes in those surprisingly

Ramis and Murray were famously against a third film for a reason. Mainly because Ackroyd was already becoming creatively bankrupt by the back end of the 80s. Hence the second movie being just a rehash (albeit a good one).

The third movie script was a rambling mess about the Cult of Gozer and more architectural sperging because lots of people saw the "Ghost channelling architecture" as a neat thing in the first movie and god help you if Ackroyd wasn't going to ride that bitch into the ground (which he did with the Pneumatic Railroad tunnels in 2 to a lesser degree). It was mostly hacked to pieces and shoved into the first Ghostbusters Video Game and predominantly dumped into the flavour text rather than front and centre.

Ramis would fight a third movie right up to his death too, which is a shame as the elements seen in this movie seem pretty good. Not enough hard cut absurdities as per the first movie, but then we've kind of moved on cinematic-ally from such hard cut jokes.

Yeah Dan always needs to be reigned in and I cant imagine after blues brothers 2000 anyone could do that reasonably anymore.

Ghostbusters is one of those movies I watch once a year around Halloween time because, fuck it, it is perfect for October viewing.

As a kid, I always went back and forth on who my favorite was: Peter or Egon. I loved Peter for his sarcasm and Bill Murray's, uh, Bill Murray-ness, and I loved Egon for being the dry nerdy tech guy of the group (Kind of like Donatello and Spock rolled into one character).

But the more I watch the film, the more I appreciate Winston's role in the group. He comes into the film late, yet still manages to leave an impact. His whole speech to Ray about the bible and the end of the world is one of the best (and most underrated) scenes in the movie. He also brought more of a down to Earth perspective to things. The others were wrapped up in their own beliefs and goals and Winston was just a guy working for a paycheck, so he was a bit more grounded ("No offense, but I've gotta get my own lawyer").

When I look at what the four Ghostbusters bring to the table, I see Egon as the brain, Peter as the mouth, and Ray as the heart. All very important, but Winston is the legs. He keeps them grounded and stable, and represented growth and forward movement for the business.

Egon's great for deadpan, and as the movie went on you started to see he became more expressive with dry humor until the game when he seems mostly normal, it was an interesting arch for him
All 4 of them are really good, and honestly if it wasn't for them all complementing each other I don't think the original nor 2 would be nearly as good as they are.

 

[Marissa Moira]

I would watch all of the OG Animated Ghostbusters, Extreme Ghostbusters is even good and has an actual Hellraiser episode.

The new movie sounds promising, it ties into Egon being actually dead IRL and in the movie's continuity. That already shows more care than Female Ghostbusters did. Hasbro already showed the toys and there's going to be a bunch of Ecto-1's to choose from including one modeled after the toy version from the animated series. Also there will be a new firehouse playset.

There's going to probably be a new video game, because this is Sony and it's looking like they want to pull a Spiderman and go all out promoting it. It's been eons since we've had a good Ghostbusters Video game, so the media tie-ins from the movie already seem worth it.

 

[FrickinFrackinFruckin]

 

[Rotollo]

TV celebrity Rich Evans talks to his vampire friend Jay about the new sony attempt at a cinematic universe.

There's going to probably be a new video game, because this is Sony and it's looking like they want to pull a Spiderman and go all out promoting it. It's been eons since we've had a good Ghostbusters Video game, so the media tie-ins from the movie already seem worth it.

They dont have the OG cast like they did for the 2009 ones they would really have to pull out all the stops unless they used the real ghostbusters actors or something
Personally I would like to see there be an open world element with ecto 1, possibly with business management similar to the NES game but not shit. hell maybe even make there be a point that property damage adds up and if you go too much in the red the EPA shuts you down and its game over.
the wrangling feels mostly fine in the 2009 game so just make some fine adjustments for the capture stream and there, you got a solid game idea.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Tell me, is it worth it to get the "Remaster" of the 2009 game if you already own the PC version on Steam?

I see the Remaster is a console exclusive that wasn't released on Steam, which sucks, it also costs 50$ which is kind of absurd for a decade old game, remaster or no, so I'm tempted to stick with what I have, unless the Remaster is some huge difference.

 

[Drunk and Pour]

Just as we (sorta) predicted, Callie, Phoebe, and Trevor share a bloodline with one of the original Ghostbusters. (It’s not confirmed, but it’s definitely Egon, the egghead played by the late Harold Ramis.) “As the family arrives at an old farm, they begin to discover their connection to the original Ghostbusters,” Reitman told Vanity Fair. “Trevor and Phoebe are about to find out who their grandfather was and whether they’re ready to pick up the proton pack themselves.”

No way. All signs point to the grandfather is Winston.

Assuming this takes place in present day, aren't these kids too old to be Egon's grandchildren?

This actually kind of hit me in the feels when I thought about it. I was 4 when GB came out, and if I knocked up my high school girlfriend, they would be old enough to go out drinking with me. Both my parents are close to a decade younger than Harold Ramis (assuming Egon is the same age in universe). These kids are actually kind of young to be grandchildren. These kids could be seen as closer to being great-grandchildren.

Spoiler: Autism math

I had to look it up. Assuming all the characters are the same age as the actors; Ramis was born in '44. He was 40 during the Manhattan Crossrip, and would be 75 today. Coon, the mother, was born '81 and is 38 today (Ramis would have been 37 when she was born.). Wolfheart was born '02 and is 16 (Coon would have been 22, Ramis 5. Grace was born '06 and is 13 (Coon would have been 26, Ramis 62). If each generation had a kid at 20, it would go; Egon born in '44, his child '64, his grandchild '84 (during the Manhattan Crossrip), his great-grandchildren '04 smack dab in the middle of the two teen actors birth years. So yeah, I hope everybody feels as old as I do know thinking about this too much. I hope the numbers check out.

This is a lot better than Ballbusters, obviously. But I'm still not too excited.

Even without the uniform reveal, the girl's look (especially the hair) while wearing her glasses would have sealed her as Egon's descendant. I guess that's kind of a classy way to "bring back" Egon when Ramis is gone. I don't hate that.

But let's say this film is successful. The best we can hope for is these two kids fighting more ghosts in sequels. Does anyone really want that? I'm fine with Paul Rudd being a new Ghostbuster, but I don't think I need the kids.

By the way, what's up with the serious, reverential tone of the trailer? I love Ghostbusters, but it was a silly (if clever) fantasy comedy. A great sequel would be appreciated, but the franchise is not exactly holy.

At least the cast is decent. And it seems to be ignoring 2...

Thinking about it more, this feels like they're making a sequel to the entire Ghostbusters franchise (including the stuff aimed at 80s kids like the cartoons), not just the movies. I can see the argument for that, but I doubt it's a good idea.

This is just a trailer, but I didn't perceive the absurd tone of the first two films in this one. I hope they're misrepresenting the film for marketing purposes...

So far, I don't mind that the lead seems to be a kid. I've never watched Stranger Things, so I can't compare and contrast. Kids deserve movies staring kids to get into, just like we did in the 80s. We had Goonies, Monster Squad, Neverending Story, ect. It's better than what they tried to do with GB16 which tried to appeal to women and/or girls and nobody gave a shit.

I agree with the aiming at 80s kids, and trying to aim at Gen-Z now. I don't think Ghostbusters was meant to appeal to children. What kid is looking for a movie about 30 something college professors starting a private business and having to deal with government regulators? It was just a screwball 80s comedy. But it had ghosts and monsters and kids were drawn to it. Then of course the cartoon and toys came along.

I always assumed that the new movie would involve one of the OGBs kids, maybe even Oscar. I didn't expect them to go so young. I don't mind Egon's grandkids being child protegees, but they are just kids wearing unlicensed nuclear accelerators on their backs. Some adults should be around. Paul Rudd being a superfan and self educated expert is cool. Winston being the one to carry on the Ghostbusters torch would be interesting. Just a working class dude who took on a job for a steady paycheck, after 35 years becomes an expert in the field and teaches new recruits. He shows up halfway through the first movie, and becomes the head of the organization. Plus, he seems to be the only one that actually cares about the fans or the franchise. Plus Plus, woke points.

I wonder if it'll have a more Extreme-style feel but tfw no goth gf Kylie for everyone to freak out about

Kate McKinnon's science punk girl was the only good part of the '16 movie. She was actually a character. And hot. Well, Leslie Jones' was also a character which is every government worker I HAVE to deal with. If McKinnon's character was in a "pass the torch" movie as Egon and Janine's daughter, I think it would have been a start for a better movie. Also no involvement with Paul "girls are actually funnier than guys" Feig.

 

[Munchingonfish]

This actually kind of hit me in the feels when I thought about it. I was 4 when GB came out, and if I knocked up my high school girlfriend, they would be old enough to go out drinking with me. Both my parents are close to a decade younger than Harold Ramis (assuming Egon is the same age in universe). These kids are actually kind of young to be grandchildren. These kids could be seen as closer to being great-grandchildren.

Spoiler: Autism math

I had to look it up. Assuming all the characters are the same age as the actors; Ramis was born in '44. He was 40 during the Manhattan Crossrip, and would be 75 today. Coon, the mother, was born '81 and is 38 today (Ramis would have been 37 when she was born.). Wolfheart was born '02 and is 16 (Coon would have been 22, Ramis 5. Grace was born '06 and is 13 (Coon would have been 26, Ramis 62). If each generation had a kid at 20, it would go; Egon born in '44, his child '64, his grandchild '84 (during the Manhattan Crossrip), his great-grandchildren '04 smack dab in the middle of the two teen actors birth years. So yeah, I hope everybody feels as old as I do know thinking about this too much. I hope the numbers check out.

I wasn't going off Ramis' real age. I just figured if there were no mention of kids in the first two movies, none of them had any. Which would've put his daughter as being born at '89 at the earliest. I guess he could've had a relationship before the movies happened that ended up with a child he didn't know about.

 

[Idiotron]

My jaded mind can't just watch the trailer without seeing it for what it is:

The feels exactly like the trailer for The Force Awakens. I bet that the execs at Sony along with Aykroyd planned it this way right after the opening weekend for Ghostbusters 2016.
It will make a ton of money, I can already tell by the reactions, but it feels like cynical cash grab, just a lot more calculated than the previous one.
What am I even saying? This is Sony. All they do these days are cynical cash grabs.

The original trailer for the 1984 movie is still better.

 

[Adamska]

I could honestly buy Egon having kids late; he wasn't very sociable and was extremely isolated as a character. At least until he began regularly working with Ray, Peter, and Winston, which would actually fit with the mom's age that he only became a bit more personable later in life.

I still think it's really dumb with how they're saying 2 didn't happen, especially since my experience is movies that do this usually suck harder than the sequel the people behind it claim to hate.

 

[Stab You in the Back]

The feels exactly like the trailer for The Force Awakens. I bet that the execs at Sony along with Aykroyd planned it this way right after the opening weekend for Ghostbusters 2016.

I'm of the generation that should be super into the Ghostbusters sequel, but I just don't care. Ghostbusters is a movie I enjoyed, but I don't have fond feelings for it. I don't get wistful for it, or shed tears of soy at seeing the Ecto One in action. My interest in a sequel died with Harold Ramis, and even before then it was on shaky ground. Bill Murray is too old. Dan Aykroyd.. sucks. Ernie Hudson is barely a Ghostbuster.

That said, the trailer makes the movie seem like a cookie-cutter kids' film. Single mother, kid acts out, surrogate father unwittingly pushes kid into wacky hijinks, through said hijinks, kid resolves his issues with mom, mom and surrogate dad hook up, happy ending. I hope there's more to it than that, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Rotollo]

I still think it's really dumb with how they're saying 2 didn't happen, especially since my experience is movies that do this usually suck harder than the sequel the people behind it claim to hate.

they said its been 30 years, 2 was in 1989, hell the game took place in 1991, so if we take the 30 as a rough estimate and the film as in 2020 both could of still happened.
hell considering that shandor was what caused all 3 happening if the game is canon thats probably what caused ghost sightings to go down since the 80s

 

[Dom Cruise]

I'm definitely hoping they're not ignoring 2 and even the video game.

If you're wondering why the Ecto 1 looks like the original and not the one in the sequel the video game establishes that they retrofitted it to look like the original after the events of the second movie, they even switched out the "2" sign with the original (you can see the "2" sign laying amongst junk in the background of the firehouse), the whole "2" thing was just a short lived marketing gimmick.

While it's possible the video game might slip through the cracks, which would be a shame, I see no reason why they would pretend 2 never happened and I sincerely doubt they will, just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Idiotron]

I'm of the generation that should be super into the Ghostbusters sequel, but I just don't care.

Here's a hot take:
You SHOULDN'T be into a Ghostbusters sequel because it's a premise that works exactly once.
They should have left it alone but it was one of the highest grossing movies of all time back then so they had to make a sequel.

That said, the trailer makes the movie seem like a cookie-cutter kids' film. Single mother, kid acts out, surrogate father unwittingly pushes kid into wacky hijinks, through said hijinks, kid resolves his issues with mom, mom and surrogate dad hook up, happy ending. I hope there's more to it than that, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm thinking Stranger Things.
Small town, bunch of kids, supernatural shenanigans.
NOTHING LIKE STRANGER THINGS AT ALL!!!
They even have the ugly kid from Stranger Things in the movie and the girl looks like Eleven.
I bet that the parent of one of the kids will go on a separate adventure with Paul Rudd, just like Winona Ryder and Hellboy in ST.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

I vaguely recall once seeing this episode of the old 1980s Real Ghostbusters cartoon (the one with Slimer) where they go to this crazy mansion where space is distorted or something. I think there's this one part where the crew were walking on the ceiling.

 

[XYZpdq]

>at work
>waiting around for the person who needs to be let in the locked door on the weekend
>bored watching traffic
>antennae and a bunch of shit poking out from the top of some long car
>get a clear view
>Ecto-1 cruises by
well that was different

 

[BrunoMattei]

>at work
>waiting around for the person who needs to be let in the locked door on the weekend
>bored watching traffic
>antennae and a bunch of shit poking out from the top of some long car
>get a clear view
>Ecto-1 cruises by
well that was different

Can you imagine if the movie came out this month and they did promotion like that in China? All the Corona-infected people would be running outside thinking it was an ambulance to save them.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Here's a hot take:
You SHOULDN'T be into a Ghostbusters sequel because it's a premise that works exactly once.

On the contrary I think it's a premise that could work an infinite number of times.

Compare it to James Bond, you have a character who has a job, saving the world, and each new movie the plot is that there's simply a new threat he has to save the world from.

Ghostbusters could be like that but with a group of characters who have a job instead of a singular character.

I mean sure that's not the deepest type of storytelling but it doesn't have to be.

The trouble with Ghostbusters 2 is they wanted to lazily reuse the "going into business" framework of the first movie instead of being bold enough to have the Ghostbusters just be the Ghostbusters at the start, have them doing their usual thing, maybe business has slowed down somewhat, until a new threat arrives in NYC in the form of Vigo.

Obviously showing their origin is a premise that only really works once, but the premise itself lends itself to any number of stories provided you keep the status quo of the Ghostbusters just being the Ghostbusters much like James Bond doesn't have to go through spy school and get his license to kill at the start of every movie.

To even borrow from the formula of Bond some more just like every Bond movie has the opening action sequence each Ghostbusters sequel could have started with them on a 'busting job unrelated to the overall plot of the movie, just a fun little side adventure.

I'm pretty sure the original intention behind Ghostbusters was for it to be a long running thing, just for whatever reasons it didn't work out (some of which has to do with Bill Murray)

But the premise of Ghostbusters is such that it doesn't even have to be that same group of characters forever, you could eventually do a "passing of the torch" and bring in a new generation of Ghostbusters, which is what this new one is doing.

In a perfect world Ghostbusters would have been the James Bond of comedy with many entries, instead of just 2 with that original cast, it's such a huge missed opportunity.

 

[Sexual Chocolate]

On the contrary I think it's a premise that could work an infinite number of times.

Compare it to James Bond, you have a character who has a job, saving the world, and each new movie the plot is that there's simply a new threat he has to save the world from.

Ghostbusters could be like that but with a group of characters who have a job instead of a singular character.

Sure, but James Bond was already creatively moribund by the time OCTOPUSSY came out in 1983.

It's been a zombie franchise longer than most people have been alive, animated only by the producers' insatiable hunger for cash.

What stories are left to tell about Bond's world? A mysterious billionaire has a plan to build some kind of superweapon, and only England's finest spy can stop him? Involving shootouts and fist fights in glamorous locations? Where our hero drives cool cars, uses futuristic gadgets, and also sexes beautiful women? Ok.

Bond is so tired even the title of the new movie sounds like a Liartown spoof - "No Time To Die" indeed. Fuck off, Bond.

There's still a paying audience for this stuff, and I'm not a cinema snob (me and my son enjoyed watching Sonic the Hedgehog this week). But I'd like there to be a reason, other than dollars, to make a movie. Some creative energy, something we haven't seen before a million times? Otherwise everything is a copy, of a copy, of a copy, and none of it means anything anymore, and we're just all killing time, like Ed Norton warned us about in Fight Club.

The trouble with Ghostbusters 2 is they wanted to lazily reuse the "going into business" framework of the first movie instead of being bold enough to have the Ghostbusters just be the Ghostbusters at the start, have them doing their usual thing, maybe business has slowed down somewhat, until a new threat arrives in NYC in the form of Vigo.

I saw it in the theater when it first came out, and it was disappointing even as a kid. Watching it again as an adult, there are some good things in it.

Bill Murray as a sleazy psychic talk show host is gold, they could have done more with that. Annie Potts and Rick Moranis have great chemistry. Peter MacNicol is a delightful motherfucker.

Vigo, while ultimately disappointing because of poor writing (his evil plan is to become a baby? What was his follow up plan - take over the kindergarten?) at least looks the part of an evil wizard/ghost/painting.

But apart from the flabby script and inability to recreate the humor and fun of the original, the main reason Ghostbusters 2 kinda sucks is because we've already been there, done that. You can cookie cutter the template for action movies, but it doesn't work as well with the weird science fiction / supernatural / comedy mash up Ghostbusters was.

Maybe if it was more like the Harry Dresden universe, where you start off relatively small (in terms of the Bad Guy of the Week) and build up the stakes as the series progresses, while the hero also grows and changes? But that's hard to do in a movie franchise, for commercial and practical reasons.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Sure, but James Bond was already creatively moribund by the time OCTOPUSSY came out in 1983.

It's been a zombie franchise longer than most people have been alive, animated only by the producers' insatiable hunger for cash.

What stories are left to tell about Bond's world? A mysterious billionaire has a plan to build some kind of superweapon, and only England's finest spy can stop him? Involving shootouts and fist fights in glamorous locations? Where our hero drives cool cars, uses futuristic gadgets, and also sexes beautiful women? Ok.

Bond is so tired even the title of the new movie sounds like a Liartown spoof - "No Time To Die" indeed. Fuck off, Bond.

There's still a paying audience for this stuff, and I'm not a cinema snob (me and my son enjoyed watching Sonic the Hedgehog this week). But I'd like there to be a reason, other than dollars, to make a movie. Some creative energy, something we haven't seen before a million times? Otherwise everything is a copy, of a copy, of a copy, and none of it means anything anymore, and we're just all killing time, like Ed Norton warned us about in Fight Club.



I saw it in the theater when it first came out, and it was disappointing even as a kid. Watching it again as an adult, there are some good things in it.

Bill Murray as a sleazy psychic talk show host is gold, they could have done more with that. Annie Potts and Rick Moranis have great chemistry. Peter MacNicol is a delightful motherfucker.

Vigo, while ultimately disappointing because of poor writing (his evil plan is to become a baby? What was his follow up plan - take over the kindergarten?) at least looks the part of an evil wizard/ghost/painting.

But apart from the flabby script and inability to recreate the humor and fun of the original, the main reason Ghostbusters 2 kinda sucks is because we've already been there, done that. You can cookie cutter the template for action movies, but it doesn't work as well with the weird science fiction / supernatural / comedy mash up Ghostbusters was.

Maybe if it was more like the Harry Dresden universe, where you start off relatively small (in terms of the Bad Guy of the Week) and build up the stakes as the series progresses, while the hero also grows and changes? But that's hard to do in a movie franchise, for commercial and practical reasons.

How many Bond movies had been made by 1983? Maybe something can't keep going forever without losing creative juices but Bond at least had a run of several movies before it got stale, Ghostbusters has only had 2 (I do NOT consider the 2016 one to count at all fyi)

I liked Ghostbusters 2 a lot as a kid but even I recognized the plot as rehashing the same story beats as the first movie, but what was there that was different was good enough, at least we got to spend more time with the characters and the humor was still funny, I'm glad Ghostbusters 2 exists at all even in a flawed form.

And Vigo was different enough from Gozer as a villain to be interesting, Gozer was some powerful entity from another dimension, Vigo was essentially a "super ghost", the ghost of a man so evil it gave him powers beyond your normal ghost.

Sometimes that's all you need is an interesting enough villain and threat to stop.

 

[KingofNothing]

How threatening do you guys hope the ghosts to be in the new movie? Yeah the protagonists are going to be kids, but I'm hoping for some fucked up shit like the Cenobites-esque looking dudes from Extreme Ghostbusters who kept turning people into horrible flesh sculptures. Also I would not have said no to a movie that was literally just Extreme Ghostbusters