|
jiffynuts posted:Oh man, no William Atherton (Walter Peck)? Shame. Why would William Atherton (Walter Peck) be included in a list of current up-and-coming comedy stars
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
10-15 years ago, I’d have loved to have seen Joel McHale in a Venkman-esque role.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:10-15 years ago, I’d have loved to have seen Joel McHale in a Venkman-esque role. He could probably do it still. poo poo yeah, he'd be great for that. Jeff Winger is kind of a slightly nicer Venkman, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:The humor in the original is so natural that I can kind of understand not viewing it as a comedy, especially since it’s played straight and the threats taken seriously. Like so many I grew up on Ghostbusters with my brother. Watching those VHS tapes of gb1 and 2 over and over, he had a bunch of the toys, the first halloween costume my parents ever dressed me in before I could walk was stay-puft to my brother's egon, and for all that time growing up watching it over and over, not once did I ever know it was a comedy. It never even occurred to me it was supposed to be a funny film. To me it was an exciting action and horror film that scared the hell out of me. Just a frightening experience all around. Like, in the same catagory for me as watching the taped-off-tv VHS of Stephen King's IT over and over. It wasn't until I was like... 13 or something watching it again that I realized "wait this movie is a comedy and its hilarious".
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I mean, 2016 GB tried to replicate that magic. I would argue that Chris Hemsworth was the biggest star of that movie, much like Sigorney Weaver was in GB84. All the rest were SNL alums for the most part. I guess Wiig had more mainstream success than like Akroyd or Murray had at that point but... Wiig was nominated for an Oscar for the Bridesmaids screenplay,* but yeah. If Eddie Murphy had actually been in the original film I think he would have been the biggest as he was really blowing up around that time. *I wonder what she would have done with the 2016 script if they gave it to her (and she wanted to do it).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Yeah, that's why I put down Back to the Future as the next closest comparison. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz definitely carry that torch. 80s had a lot of these like Gremlins 1 and Arachnophobia. You also ended up with a few things like Tremors carrying the torch; I think the kind of relegation of creature features to DTV is what kind of got rid of the "touches on horror and comedy but isn't quite any of the above" genres.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
I never thought the original Ghostbusters was scary at all, apart from that opening scene with the librarian ghost. I'd have to fast forward past the "jump scare" part every time. And maybe a few parts with Dana and the terror dogs. I didn't really think of it as a horror or comedy though, even though I got the humor of it and loved Bill Murray especially. I looked at it like an action-adventure movie in the vein of Indiana Jones or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
The first trailer had some jokes, so I don't know why people are like "oh no, no funny men in my ghost movie" This seems to be at least attempting to stick to the original's blending of humor, horror, and action adventure. One of the reason's 2016's film failed is they just went full Judd Apatow style comedy and it isn't the same at all. That said, I will occasionally remember the Mike Hat joke from 2016 and have a hearty laugh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 03:28
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:I never thought the original Ghostbusters was scary at all, apart from that opening scene with the librarian ghost. I'd have to fast forward past the "jump scare" part every time. And maybe a few parts with Dana and the terror dogs. I like Ghostbusters but a big part of what makes it work is that it is effectively workplace comedy where the workplace is ghosts. It has a pretty epic final showdown but prior to that you're getting what amounts to exterminators hunting down rats with neat gear. I think trying to make Ghostbusters about the epic would kind of detracts from what makes it work because the big thing that makes it work is that you have a group of exterminators facing down God and that is inherently funny. Stranger Things (especially Season 1) do a good job of straddling that line with the humor coming from dorky-rear end kids being the Goonies so if it matches the ST tone I'd be down for it. If I have to watch Bill Murry get a tragic tearjerking death scene or something while sad music plays and they treat it as the most serious thing ever then I'll be rolling my eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 04:30
|
|
|
A lot of why the original movie is so good is that it really lets the plot breathe. Worth remembering there's actually just a grand total of one scene of them doing ghostbusting, the rest is implied through other scenes and the montage, while the whole Gozer plot slowly putters on. Of course a lot of that has to do with special effects being laborious and expensive back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 10:47
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:If I have to watch Bill Murry get a tragic tearjerking death scene or something while sad music plays and they treat it as the most serious thing ever then I'll be rolling my eyes. On the other hand I really wouldn't be surprised if Murray only agreed to do the movie if they killed off his character so he wouldn't have to appear in any other sequels
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 12:25
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:A lot of why the original movie is so good is that it really lets the plot breathe. Worth remembering there's actually just a grand total of one scene of them doing ghostbusting, the rest is implied through other scenes and the montage, while the whole Gozer plot slowly putters on. Of course a lot of that has to do with special effects being laborious and expensive back in the day. I've heard the original described as a 'long short movie' and I think I get it. It's a very tight movie that manages to make you realize it's not skipping to the end really quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
Dawgstar posted:I've heard the original described as a 'long short movie' and I think I get it. It's a very tight movie that manages to make you realize it's not skipping to the end really quickly. Oh wow, I suppose that fits. Never thought of it like that. The pacing is really well done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 12:39
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Oh wow, I suppose that fits. Never thought of it like that. The pacing is really well done. The original is a really tightly written, and well put together film. “I think one of the nicest reviews we got for this movie said the whole film was like a perfectly told joke.” – Harold Ramis
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 12:48
|
|
|
Dawgstar posted:I've heard the original described as a 'long short movie' and I think I get it. It's a very tight movie that manages to make you realize it's not skipping to the end really quickly. They cheat a lot with the timeframe throughout the movie and hide it really well. The scene where they first meet Dana and then go on their first ghostbusting gig is a great example - when Dana walks in Ray is working on the Ecto-1 which is still an unpainted black hearse with no ghostbusting equipment on it, then they interview her about her Zuul incident and Peter goes to her apartment to check it out, then they cut back to the firehouse where they're sitting around eating Chinese takeaway and making a toast "To our first ..... and only .... customer" (as if the earlier scene only just happened) and suddenly they get the call from the Sedgewick Hotel and rush off in the fully repainted & decked out Ecto-1 with a full complement of proton packs & ghostbusting gear. There was a timeskip of at least a month hidden in there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 12:58
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:On the other hand I really wouldn't be surprised if Murray only agreed to do the movie if they killed off his character so he wouldn't have to appear in any other sequels But he failed to read the fine print were he comes back as a ghost named “Slimer 2”.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 13:11
|
|
|
The original film works so well because it had a lot of time, literally years, and effort spent on tightening up the story and polishing every scene, every line, so they were as good as they could be. (And then they kept tightening and polishing during editing, so filmed scenes adding nothing to the story like the two bums and possessed Louis scaring off muggers were deleted, and the ghost blowjob was reduced to a quick joke in the montage.) Plus the whole thing was Aykroyd's dream project, and he put everything he had into it. Then 2 comes along, and it has to hit a set date so the writing process is more rushed, and Murray's only doing it for money, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 13:12
|
|
|
Part of the magic of it is the scene to scene editing, which is one of the great tools for creating a well paced film. Each scene flows through to the next in a way that guides your brain so you don't have to reset your attention - the start of one scene feels logically and thematically connected to the end of the previous. One example is Dana screaming and slamming the door to the Fridge, which cuts straight to the GhostBusters sign at the firehouse, it's a transition that immediately communicates Dana's train of thought, "oh poo poo, monster in the fridge, who can help me!". Another example is going from Egon's Twinkie speech which is pretty much "something terrible is about to happen", straight to 55 central Park West covered in a lightening storm telling us that the bad thing is already happening. Then in the Terror Dog birth, straight from the red glowing eye to a close-up of Dana, its upcoming victim. The whole film is filled with those purposeful, motivated cuts from scene to scene which makes the film fly by like its on roller skates even while still allowing scenes to play out and breathe. It's an art that I think gets lost in some modern more convoluted blockbusters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 13:18
|
|
|
Peter: "But we do have standard procedures, in a case like this, that often bring us results." Ray: *nails it immediately* 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
Payndz posted:The original film works so well because it had a lot of time, literally years, and effort spent on tightening up the story and polishing every scene, every line, so they were as good as they could be. (And then they kept tightening and polishing during editing, so filmed scenes adding nothing to the story like the two bums and possessed Louis scaring off muggers were deleted, and the ghost blowjob was reduced to a quick joke in the montage.) Plus the whole thing was Aykroyd's dream project, and he put everything he had into it. There is a webseries on YouTube called Entertain the Elk about when he thinks popular tv shows and movie franchises die. His theories of sequels: 1. Give the Audience something new 2. Identify what works and build off of it 3. Change the stakes. GB2 fails 1 and 3 completely. The team dynamic still works for #2 and is enough to make the movie fine to above average but just doesn't hit the wow factor of GB84 because its the same movie practically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 14:36
|
|
|
Yeah, 2 hits a lot of the same beats as the original because they either didn't want or couldn't be bothered to change the zeroes-to-heroes arc of the Ghostbusters. So they start off in a similar position as discredited failures, and have to build up the business all over again, complete with another montage following their first successful bust. Similarly, Venkman is back to square one in his relationship with Dana because it's easier to write and gives him a secondary goal, even if it's exactly the same as in the first film. (Cf Langdon's love interest in each of Dan Brown's novels being nowhere to be found in the next book.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 14:48
|
|
|
It's crazy how much is the same: -Main narrative arc about (re)starting the business and (re)winning respect of the city. -First big bust followed immediately by busting montage. -Second montage of ghosts running amok. -Evil force targets Dana and kidnaps her. -Dana is attacked at home via mundane household item. -Nerd with crush on Dana gets possessed by evil force. -Evil force localised around specific building. -Finale features giant monster, albeit inverted in GB2. -Scene where ghostbusters try to convince mayor. -Ghostbusters arrested/committed. -Main human antagonist is petty bureaucratic dick. There's probably more as well. The movie is fun and I like it but man does it go to the Jaws 2 school of sticking to the formula.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 14:57
|
|
|
One of the craziest things to me in the first film, while accepting the paranormal stuff as 'real' in that universe, is that it seems as if Winston was the ONLY person to apply to be a Ghostbuster. Meanwhile, practically everyone who sees the movie (especially kids) want nothing more than to be a Ghostbuster. Man, the behaviour of New York in these movies is weird. Kids at the party don't like them, the mayor doesn't even believe them the second time, after they saved the city and proved their worth. The judge literally thinks they're charlatans and wishes he could burn them like heretics. The only notable people who recognize them as heroes through it all are Red Haired Super fan in GB1 and Bobby Brown's kid brother. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:They cheat a lot with the timeframe throughout the movie and hide it really well. The scene where they first meet Dana and then go on their first ghostbusting gig is a great example - when Dana walks in Ray is working on the Ecto-1 which is still an unpainted black hearse with no ghostbusting equipment on it, then they interview her about her Zuul incident and Peter goes to her apartment to check it out, then they cut back to the firehouse where they're sitting around eating Chinese takeaway and making a toast "To our first ..... and only .... customer" (as if the earlier scene only just happened) and suddenly they get the call from the Sedgewick Hotel and rush off in the fully repainted & decked out Ecto-1 with a full complement of proton packs & ghostbusting gear. There was a timeskip of at least a month hidden in there. Oh, that's interesting. You could infer "this magnificent feast represents the last of our petty cash" just meant 'oh they blew their money wad and now they're about to go into the red' and not instead it's been likely they've just been sitting around for ages waiting on a call and playing those Missile Command and Star Castle arcade games. Payndz posted:Yeah, 2 hits a lot of the same beats as the original because they either didn't want or couldn't be bothered to change the zeroes-to-heroes arc of the Ghostbusters. So they start off in a similar position as discredited failures, and have to build up the business all over again, complete with another montage following their first successful bust. Similarly, Venkman is back to square one in his relationship with Dana because it's easier to write and gives him a secondary goal, even if it's exactly the same as in the first film. (Cf Langdon's love interest in each of Dan Brown's novels being nowhere to be found in the next book.) Honestly it feels like the lease they could have done was integrated Winston right off, by which I guess I mostly mean have him come out to check the intersection with the others and helping out in the courtroom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
Much like the rest of you, I've seen this movie about 150 times, and I never really noticed just how insanely happy Louis is here, when everything goes crazy.  Also, the whole shutdown sequence with the alarm and the repeated cutting to and zooming in on the red light flashing, harkening a bit back to Ray referencing the green light, is just so well-put-together. Like, there's a lot to be proud of throughout this whole thing, but this sequence is just  Edit: also, for like the 3 people ITT who haven't heard it, check out the full version of Mick Smiley's "Magic" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK2EUIYiWXU If most songs are about sex, this one is 50% "making love" and 50% "loving". Rupert Buttermilk fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Jul 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
The exact moment I realised I was going to hate AtC where the joke when first time they see a ghost Kate McKinnons character can't stop eating Pringles. It immediately just made me wonder who the this character was, if they're ostensibly supposed to be an enthusiast in the supernatural who is witnessing a loving ghost for the first time and can't tear themselves away a Scooby snacks/chimichangas gag. In the original "its looking at me ray" is funny but also makes sense as a natural reaction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
"Gozer the Gozerian" Like, part of me wants to think that Ray is just making that up, trying to do his best, but another part of me knows how knowledgeable he would be with all of that stuff. Is Gozer considered "a Gozer"? Hi, I'm Rupert the Rupertarian. Edit: wow, nevermind. How did I forget that she refers to herself as that less than 5 minutes later?
Rupert Buttermilk fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jul 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
Karloff posted:It's crazy how much is the same: I can't remember which GB film i saw first, probably the 1st but who knows, basically they're both concurrent films to me as a little kid. If i had to make a determination, i think as a child i enjoyed GB2 more, maybe because it was scarier and that was how I saw them, but yeah as an adult its so painfully clear how carbon copied GB2 is from the plot of GB1, to its detriment. Still, while as an adult, obviously the first is the far better film, I still really love GB2. It has some of my favorite scenes and favorite jokes period. The namesake of this thread currently, for example, is probably my favorite bit of the series.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
"I'd like to run some gynecological tests on the mother." "Who wouldn't?"  Weird that Egon doesn't say "Dana".
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
I think you have to remember that between 1984 when Ghostbusters came out and GB2 in 1989, the cartoon and all the toys exploded in popularity and Ghostbusters was the #1 most popular Halloween costume and all that stuff. Kids were obsessed with Ghostbusters and we were running around reenacting the movies and sliding the traps across the ground and arguing over which Ghostbuster we wanted to be and on and on. So really I can understand and even agree with the decision to make GB2 mostly a retread of the first. Because as a kid I didn't want some creative new direction, I just wanted more Ghostbusters, and by 1989 the first film was like my bible, it was like a religious text to me. So I was totally on board with more of the same, just with a creepy new villain and some new jokes, which they delivered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:"I'd like to run some gynecological tests on the mother." Egon is a big ol' weirdo
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
egon_beeblebrox posted:Egon is a big ol' weirdo Yeah, true, but like... Aside from the first movie where they've obviously met, she already specifically went to HIM with this stuff to begin with. Bah, then again, what can I really expect from a guy who wanted to take away the puppy, AND straighten part of a Slinky?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:"I'd like to run some gynecological tests on the mother." The whole scene with egon's research department is amazing stuff i never picked up on as a kid. "they think they're here for marriage counseling, and we've been steadily raising the temperature. its up to 95 degrees. Now my assistant is telling them it will be another 30 minute wait." "... lets see what happens when we take away the dog"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
I do love the fact that, during the ending credits sequence in 1, a considerable amount of that time is spent watching Ray do a 3-point-turn in the Ecto. Edit: so, if it's not already apparent, I'm rewatching the first two movies. Dana: "What are you working on, Egon?" Egon: "I'm trying to determine whether human emotions actually affect the physical environment."  Ahh, I love this. Milton Angland ACTUALLY correctly predicting a world-ending event, and Peter making reference to how aliens are usually big lizards (that are of course, usually dealt with by Sigourney Weaver).
Rupert Buttermilk fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jul 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
Peter McNichol is the absolute highlight of GB2 for me, even if his character is just eastern European Lewis Tully.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
"Gimme a break; we're both lawyers!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
the courtroom scene alone justifies the entire existence of GB2
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
Au Revoir Shosanna posted:the courtroom scene alone justifies the entire existence of GB2 Nunzio Scoleri's face is the stuff of nightmares. I agree. Still... Winston should've been there. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Nunzio Scoleri's face is the stuff of nightmares. That was the biggest fault of the 2nd movie. Winston was not around enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
On the other hand he busts down the door with that fire extinguisher to save Ray and Egon, so he's still the MVP of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 18:05
|
|