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

[Overly Serious]

I seem to be at slight odds with others in that of the two modern Ghostbusters movies I preferred Afterlife. It wasn't perfect either but it was a bit less over-crowded than the second and the character of Phoebe seemed a little more consistent. In the second they have a slightly weird romance arc and lthough the movie is more of an ensemble in some ways that actually makes her more obviously the lead. A lot of characters get undeservedly side-lined. I also saw an interview with her and the actor of the brother character. The degree to which she looks different to the Phoebe character is hilarious.

It's recognizably a Ghostbusters movie. There are some classic callbacks but it's not pure Nostalgia-bait: A decent amount of new stuff that is still respectful of the old.

Speaking of respectful, I don't seem to have the negative reaction to Egon's ghost in Afterlife. Whilst it had the potential to be gratuitous and exploitative it felt genuinely respectful to both the character and the actor. The CGI wasn't some horrible uncanny valley thing like that of Carrie Fisher or Peter Cushing in Rogue One, it was good. The character was integral to the plot and positively portrayed and the reactions of the other characters to Egon's ghost were touching. I think they did it well.

In Frozen Empire, I liked that the Nostalgia Bait was actually well done. The cute little Stay Puft men are funny, they're always doing horrible things to each other with gleeful expressions and all the old elements such as the containment unit are woven into the story rather than slapped on.

It's not brilliant but then I'm kind of too old for Ghostbusters now. There are some Progressive themes of Found Family slapped in which I am sick and tired of because at this point it's obvious that's pushed in opposition to actual family. But other than that, I think it's decent. It has a lot of good qualities.

I would give it a satisfactory 3.5/5 but I'm dropping that down to a 3 because an unexpected Patton Oswalt appeared half way through. No movie with him in it can ever truly be great.

 

[A Grey Cat]

It's amazing how Ghostbusters went from a niche part of 80s culture with two movies at the middle and end of the decade. Stayed somewhat relevant in the 90s thanks to the animated extreme Ghostbusters (we don't talk about yhe 90-91 season of real gb) and being one of the first movies on DVD. Then stayed forever in limbo waiting for a third movie that grew less and less likey as time went on. Only becoming a thing thanks to the advent of video games and their ability to deage the original cast and be set when the characters were in their prime again.


The seemingly out of nowhere the series came back but was not what fans had wanted for years. Instead serving as a harbinger of things to come. Releasing in arguably the year we entered clown world (2016) with all the main characters replaced by female leads and being a remake. The negative reception aimed at it from the day the first trailer dropped was always due to the fact that it was a remake, which had become something of a dirty word over the years what with remakes being Hollywood's go too solution for "easy money"


The director and cast however saw the negative impact as angry fanboys afraid of the fact that Hillary Clinton was on the road to becoming the first female president. And called anyone who criticized the movie sexist and misogynistic. A tactic that has lasted to this very day.


After the flames of the 2016 died down we now have Ghostbusters movies featuring although not starring the legacy cast, and being made almost as fast as the latest marvel or star wars project. In some ways the series hss gome back to its roots but is also trying to keep up with the way media is produced now. As fast as possible with as many sequels and franchise as possible.

 

[Overly Serious]

It's amazing how Ghostbusters went from a niche part of 80s culture with two movies at the middle and end of the decade. Stayed somewhat relevant in the 90s thanks to the animated extreme Ghostbusters (we don't talk about yhe 90-91 season of real gb) and being one of the first movies on DVD. Then stayed forever in limbo waiting for a third movie that grew less and less likey as time went on. Only becoming a thing thanks to the advent of video games and their ability to deage the original cast and be set when the characters were in their prime again.


The seemingly out of nowhere the series came back but was not what fans had wanted for years. Instead serving as a harbinger of things to come. Releasing in arguably the year we entered clown world (2016) with all the main characters replaced by female leads and being a remake. The negative reception aimed at it from the day the first trailer dropped was always due to the fact that it was a remake, which had become something of a dirty word over the years what with remakes being Hollywood's go too solution for "easy money"


The director and cast however saw the negative impact as angry fanboys afraid of the fact that Hillary Clinton was on the road to becoming the first female president. And called anyone who criticized the movie sexist and misogynistic. A tactic that has lasted to this very day.


After the flames of the 2016 died down we now have Ghostbusters movies featuring although not starring the legacy cast, and being made almost as fast as the latest marvel or star wars project. In some ways the series hss gome back to its roots but is also trying to keep up with the way media is produced now. As fast as possible with as many sequels and franchise as possible.

There was an initial backlash against the 2016 movie due it being all-female. I think fairly small and not entirely without merit - "female" is not by itself a selling point but seemed to be pitched as such. But as I say, not the biggest thing. It was as you say more because it was a remake. But I think what happened next is that the first trailers appeared and it looked bad. Really bad. At which point the director and marketing went all-in on criticism being misogynist which backfired terribly because by that point everybody had seen Melissa McCarthy shouting about wontons (sp?) and Leslie Jone's shouting "Is this a Black thing?" and knew it was going to be awful so they were just calling a huge load of people with legitimate objections "sexists".

Despite some flaws, both of the recent movies genuinely show affection and continuity with the originals. Hell, the latest one even references the walking Statue of Liberty incident which I honestly thought they'd try to memory hole.

EDIT: As an aside, I did like Chekov's Slimer in this movie. Good payoff.

 

[A Grey Cat]

Yes, it's nice to see that the legacy is being respected again, but like I said this series should tread carefully. One reason why Ghostbusters was endearing for so long was because of how sparingly ot was used. Two movies and one cartoon over the course of 5 years....that's all it needed then and it all it should need now.

 

[BirdUp]

isnt the whole point of the first film that ghosts were only becoming a problem because gozer was trying to bring about the apocalypse? we dont talk about the second film, but these sequels seemingly ignore how the events of ghostbusters were a one-off thing

 

[Not A Bunny]

There was an initial backlash against the 2016 movie due it being all-female. I think fairly small and not entirely without merit - "female" is not by itself a selling point but seemed to be pitched as such.

Christ, I need critics of all kinds to start pointing out that if you're going to lead with this shit, then you shouldn't get assmad over it when people criticize you for it. If you're going to make that a selling point, it's up for criticism and debate.

Same thing over and over again. The creatives are all "we've got diversity!". And the critics are all, "we know you have diversity, but did you write a good movie?"

It's even worse when people who haven't followed the critics act as if the critics are only complaining because of "diversity" (when it's clear they didn't bother even listening to what the critics have to say, or even worse, heard it but call it bad faith anyway) when all of them are pretty much laying out exactly what's wrong with the projects. It's surprising it took until 2023 before people actually started appreciably reacting to it.

And just one more point on the identity politicking thing: you get people who always say that when you gender swap characters, even with valid criticism, women get criticized more harshly than men. Thing is, though, when a female cast or gender-swap happens, and it's bad, the reason why there's so much criticism is that it's in response to the notion of "importance". It's so "important" for girls to see women as scientists in 2016, but in the 1980's, no one thought it was "important" to see men in these kinds of roles. Not because it was normalized, but because men don't try and shove that kind of meta into their motivations.

ne reason why Ghostbusters was endearing for so long was because of how sparingly ot was used.

Every successful and memorable IP is so because it isn't like anything else. GB was based on exporting working-stiff exterminators into guys who handle ghosts in 80's New York. That was the joke. Subsequent versions decided the iconography was enough and it's just "cool" to be a Ghostbuster, so everyone who thinks science and Ghostbusters are cool is now a Ghostbuster, and the joke didn't translate. That's why all of this new stuff falls flat. It feels so much like self-insert fiction and not what the original ever was in the first place.

isnt the whole point of the first film that ghosts were only becoming a problem because gozer was trying to bring about the apocalypse? we dont talk about the second film, but these sequels seemingly ignore how the events of ghostbusters were a one-off thing

I mean, it wouldn't be a terrible premise that if there's one supernatural hell-beast running around, there are probably more, like drug cartels, operating beneath notice until there's a reason when the beast or the minions surface themselves.

It would be boring if they followed the same story-beats every time. I mean, it might have made more sense if GB2 moved locations (which Afterlife did, which, I'd give it credit for the implication that there are certain geographic locations tied to Gozer), but I'm okay with there being more than one ghostly big-bad.

 

[BirdUp]

I mean, it wouldn't be a terrible premise that if there's one supernatural hell-beast running around, there are probably more, like drug cartels, operating beneath notice until there's a reason when the beast or the minions surface themselves.

It would be boring if they followed the same story-beats every time. I mean, it might have made more sense if GB2 moved locations (which Afterlife did, which, I'd give it credit for the implication that there are certain geographic locations tied to Gozer), but I'm okay with there being more than one ghostly big-bad.

of course but every ghostbusters movie has to have an apocalypse of the week where a scary demon is back at it again (i havent watched afterlife or frozen empire because they look like generic action-adventure sequels, but i assume they just hit the same notes as the first film while treating everything seriously)
im pretty sure a screenwriter could figure out a way to have high stakes and create characters as charming as spengler, venkman, and santz without dragging in the withering corpses of dan akcroyd and bill murray

 

[Standardized Profile]

isnt the whole point of the first film that ghosts were only becoming a problem because gozer was trying to bring about the apocalypse? we dont talk about the second film, but these sequels seemingly ignore how the events of ghostbusters were a one-off thing

The first movie has references to the Philadelphia Mass Turbulence and disturbances in the Sedgewick Hotel years earlier, so ghost outbreaks had evidently been a problem. But Gozer made things worse. In the second movie, Vigo is drawing psychic energy to himself and that makes ghosts proliferate. The third movie is Gozer again, the fourth is a god who telepathically controls ghosts (or sometimes just talks to them) and is waging war on the living. But when there are no gods or dead sorcerers, there are few ghosts (I don't think it's ever zero) and the Ghostbusters go out of business.

 

[Doctor of Autism]

I watched the original recently and seeing all this shit, it makes me believe Ghostbusters should've been a one and done deal.

Ghostbusters 2 was just a rehash and the Cartoon was one of those "turn movies into cartoons" sort of deal

But because of that, the Ghostbusters are treated as these mystical heroes on the same level as someone like Luke Skywalker when Ghostbusters was a cynical comedy movie. 2016 only understood it was a comedy, but didn't even understand why Ghostbusters was funny and tried to make a female-led movie that no one wanted.

Afterlife/Frozen Empire both feel they are made for people who were nostalgic for the cartoon because they are generic nostalgia reboot movies that need to reference everything that came before while doing the classic "oh the actors from the first movie are back, but are old losers now!".

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

But because of that, the Ghostbusters are treated as these mystical heroes on the same level as someone like Luke Skywalker when Ghostbusters was a cynical comedy movie.

It also doesn't help that modern comedians cannot do deadpan snark writing, which is what a lot of 80s comedies were. No one knows how to pull off "This man has no dick" and "At 19%, you didn't even bargain with the guy!" or having to climb the stairs of a skyscraper or ghost fellatio. Maybe that's what ectoplasm is, the ghost spat cum out. Everyone's got to talk all the time trying to out-funny each other and I absolutely blame Millennials for ADHD jokes.

Ghostbusters fans keep falling for the pitfalls of proton packs and ghosts being the biggest threat when they really aren't. Incidentally, they were in the first movie, but since it's a movie about the extermination business, it should logically follow that afterwards, people at large should regard ghosts as real, but as a termite infestation... like... well like the first movie showed. Which is why I argue for Ghostbusters Corporate as a way to use the old cast instead of having them still bust ghosts and imply they're still losers. The real threat of a Ghostbusters movie should always be the mundane threat of running a business and the unintended consequences of their actions. How about they get sued for spreading Alpha particles everywhere? What exactly powers their proton packs? Is it uranium? Then does that mean they sell depleted uranium to the DoD? Doesn't the company have to pay for damages incurred when trying to capture ghosts? That was the case in the Ghostbusters video game.

 

[Kulee Baba]

Incidentally, they were in the first movie, but since it's a movie about the extermination business, it should logically follow that afterwards, people at large should regard ghosts as real, but as a termite infestation... like... well like the first movie showed.

Agreed. Ghostbusters is just a silly buddy comedy about opening a small business. I mean damn I relate to this scene I bet everyone who has started a small business has had this feeling.

For sequels I would have liked the Ghostbusters dealing with an imitation rival company. Assholes who undercut the Ghostbusters prices and wind up needing to be bailed out by the heroes. But a movie about Egon’s family just sounds so lame I didn’t even bother watching them.

The good news is the Ghostbusters video game from a decade ago was lovely fan service and fills the need for a GB3.

 

[Overly Serious]

isnt the whole point of the first film that ghosts were only becoming a problem because gozer was trying to bring about the apocalypse? we dont talk about the second film, but these sequels seemingly ignore how the events of ghostbusters were a one-off thing

Key story background to Afterlife was that yes, it was a very uncommon event and that there hasn't been a ghost siting in a very long time, the Ghostbusters themselves went out of business (despite merchandising the Heck out of themselves) due to lack of business. The events in Afterlife kick off reasons directly related to the events of the first movie.

of course but every ghostbusters movie has to have an apocalypse of the week where a scary demon is back at it again (i havent watched afterlife or frozen empire because they look like generic action-adventure sequels, but i assume they just hit the same notes as the first film while treating everything seriously)

Having a big event be a rarer thing against a background of lower-stakes stuff works in a TV show but when you have three movies and they're spectacle movies, you can't spend several movies on low-key day-in-the life stuff to appease @bird.up 's desire for large events to feel sufficiently rare for his realism-o-meter. Because the vast majority of people want to see big events and you don't have movies to spare the way you do a TV show. Instead they do it by backstory such as in Afterlife where it's been decades since the Ghostbusters were a big thing and many people have even gone back to not believing in ghosts. But then you haven't even watched the movies because they're "generic action movies". Which Afterlife isn't - it's got a run time of 2hrs and a handful of action sequences. Much of it is getting to know the characters, uncovering the mystery of what is going on, playing around with gadgets, etc.

But I have a hunch you'll now insta-flip from "it sounds like generic action" to "it sounds boring."

im pretty sure a screenwriter could figure out a way to have high stakes and create characters as charming as spengler, venkman, and santz without dragging in the withering corpses of dan akcroyd and bill murray

Who says they didn't? You've not seen these movies. Paul Rudd's character is a bit generic but he delivers his lines with humour and has a nice interplay with the mother. Phoebe is actually very engaging as a character as is Podcast (they waste him in Frozen Empire, though). As to "dragging in the withered corpse" that's a little harsh don't you think? Bill Murray and Dan Akcroyd are barely in Afterlife in terms of screentime but they're written nicely enough and there's nothing wrong with the actors - they can still play their roles. They all have a more prominent role in Frozen Empire but are still mainly supporting characters. People want them to appear. One of the rightful criticisms of the 2016 Girlbusters movie (one of many rightful criticisms) was that it was a remake that scrapped the originals. This doesn't - it builds on them so of course we see some of the old characters.

Ghostbusters 2 was just a rehash and the Cartoon was one of those "turn movies into cartoons" sort of deal

I don't think so. I remember enjoying The Real Ghostbusters cartoon quite a lot and it had lots of fun ideas. I remember they had a Lovecraft episodes (Egon: "Cthulhu makes Gozer look like Little Mary Sunshine") and I have memories of some vampire vs. werewolves episode I thought was fun. I mean it was a kids show - I imagine I wouldn't enjoy it today but I think it was good and I'm pretty sure it has a lot of fans who remember it similarly. There was an Extreme Ghostbusters cartoon that I was too old for by that point but I think that was fairly well received as well.

 

[BirdUp]

Having a big event be a rarer thing against a background of lower-stakes stuff works in a TV show but when you have three movies and they're spectacle movies, you can't spend several movies on low-key day-in-the life stuff to appease @bird.up 's desire for large events to feel sufficiently rare for his realism-o-meter.

not what i meant
of course there should be high stakes but you can make it something other than another apocalypse

But then you haven't even watched the movies because they're "generic action movies". Which Afterlife isn't - it's got a run time of 2hrs and a handful of action sequences. Much of it is getting to know the characters, uncovering the mystery of what is going on, playing around with gadgets, etc.

ghostbusters was a comedy film with fantasy elements
if the sequels spend most of their time taking themselves seriously and showing off how hecking awesome their gadgets are then they're not comedy films

 

[Overly Serious]

if the sequels spend most of their time taking themselves seriously and showing off how hecking awesome their gadgets are then they're not comedy films

Well I could tell you some of the things in the movie that made me laugh but nothing would not be rejected by you.

 

[BirdUp]

Well I could tell you some of the things in the movie that made me laugh but nothing would not be rejected by you.

if they're just throwaway lines that every action film must have then yeah

 

[Vyse Inglebard]

ghostbusters was a comedy film with fantasy elements
if the sequels spend most of their time taking themselves seriously and showing off how hecking awesome their gadgets are then they're not comedy films

Yep, this is precisely why the original has stood the test of time even 40 years later, whereas the attempts to follow up fall short, whether disastrously (2016), or close, but not quite (II/Afterlife/Frozen Empire). Never once in the original is a character tasked with delivering a long-winded monologue explaining what’s happening to the other characters or to the audience. Instead, the data points are scattered like breadcrumbs. If you care enough to follow them, you’ll come to a greater understanding of the specifics behind what, exactly, the Ghostbusters are beating back.

If you don’t, however, the film doesn’t feel any emptier. What’s more, the majority of the audience - people like @bird.up - don't care. That’s not what the movie is to them. They see a comedy about four misfits ultimately taking down a great and rising evil. Does it matter who Gozer specifically is? Or the role of Ivo Shandor, a completely unseen character, in bringing Gozer back? Or why lesser ghosts are able to terrorize New York City before Gozer is able to break through? Or why Dana and Louis are specifically chosen to host Zuul and Vinz Clortho, Gozer’s Gatekeeper and Keymaster? Or how, exactly, the two of them fucking brings Gozer back?

None of this matters to the majority of the audience. If it does to you, that’s great; you’ll have plenty to dig into and enjoy and think about after the film ends. But it all happens in the background. Bigger things are happening, but we can only see what our characters see. The rest is inference and assumption. That limitation is the reason those who care about the lore and those who don’t can enjoy the original Ghostbusters equally.

TL;DR: The orignal Ghostbusters wasn’t actually about Gozer. It wasn’t about ghosts. It wasn’t about the end of the world. It was about people. It was about how these people relate to each other, and how they deal with an impossible fight against unknowable adversaries. It was about how people interact, how they see the world, and how the Ghostbusters find a place for themselves.

 

[Overly Serious]

if they're just throwaway lines that every action film must have then yeah

No, anything.

 

[XYZpdq Jr.]

It's amazing how Ghostbusters went from a niche part of 80s culture with two movies at the middle and end of the decade. Stayed somewhat relevant in the 90s thanks to the animated extreme Ghostbusters (we don't talk about yhe 90-91 season of real gb) and being one of the first movies on DVD. Then stayed forever in limbo waiting for a third movie that grew less and less likey as time went on. Only becoming a thing thanks to the advent of video games and their ability to deage the original cast and be set when the characters were in their prime again.


The seemingly out of nowhere the series came back but was not what fans had wanted for years. Instead serving as a harbinger of things to come. Releasing in arguably the year we entered clown world (2016) with all the main characters replaced by female leads and being a remake. The negative reception aimed at it from the day the first trailer dropped was always due to the fact that it was a remake, which had become something of a dirty word over the years what with remakes being Hollywood's go too solution for "easy money"


The director and cast however saw the negative impact as angry fanboys afraid of the fact that Hillary Clinton was on the road to becoming the first female president. And called anyone who criticized the movie sexist and misogynistic. A tactic that has lasted to this very day.


After the flames of the 2016 died down we now have Ghostbusters movies featuring although not starring the legacy cast, and being made almost as fast as the latest marvel or star wars project. In some ways the series hss gome back to its roots but is also trying to keep up with the way media is produced now. As fast as possible with as many sequels and franchise as possible.

there was also the very-quickly scuttled plans for "Ghostbusters [Local Crew]" spin-offs, the closest that came to fruition was Tenma-san Ga Yuku out of Japan, which wasn't _technically_ the Ghostbusters brand, but was definitely exploiting that Sony isn't going to sue Sony

 

[TVB]

ghostbusters was a comedy film with fantasy elements

Mike Stoklasa said it best in a HitB Frozen Empire review, "it's a simple comedy movie about four guys running a business." It's not a complex movie that doesn't go into more detail beyond it.

 

[XYZpdq Jr.]

spotted on the road today