|
John Wilkes Booth posted:Great thread, OP. I haven't seen the movie in 6 years or something; this made me want to go see it again. I'd actually really like to, as I could talk your face off about the DeLorean time machine and how/how many were used in various processes across the three films, but with BTTF it's harder (for me) to identify with the art design overall, because a lot of it is either period, or overtly expositional (Marty's house slummy to start with, nice at the end). The fact that huge amount of BTTF is backlot doesn't help much either. But the car? Yeah, I could do that all day, but I don't think there's much call for that in this forum? Maybe a movie car thread? "Car" films have disappeared of late. Anyway, glad the thread went down well. What's really nice is to see massive discussions on directorial style, the meaning of NYC, why the film was so solid, all mixed with quotes and gags. That's what I love about the film, that you can take so much from it. There have been an awful lot of arguments here lately about authorial intent and all that, and while I don't want to set that off again, I thought it was an interesting middle ground. Ghostbusters is a film you can definitely take at face value, but if you want to dig into it, it gives a lot back. TheBigBudgetSequel posted:It doesn't use the effects to say "Hey, Look, we made something cool, look!" but instead uses them to create a reality for the characters I think this is key to why it's so enjoyable in a way. As much effort went into to getting the NYC look as there did doing all the ghost-related stuff. Some of the effects, as mentioned earlier, are patently rubbish, but the film has pulled you in enough for you not to be snapped out of it (well, I suppose that's a bit generous, but it's hard to criticise). Icon-Cat posted:Part of this no doubt came from the unusual writing structure (Aykroyd writes a serious weirdo movie, Ramis makes it funny). But part of this is just plain smart filmmaking. Great series of posts. Yeah, there was an awful lot of improv in the film which I feel helps a lot. Aykroyd had a lot of praise for Moranis in that film, saying that he played his lines "like a fuckin' musician". Murray too, obviously had a whale of a time. Maybe it's because it does feel like each of the actors is an analogue of their Ghostbusters counterparts? Reitman seems to have a good sense of scale, I think he can set a good scene - the setpieces here, and both in GBII and Evolution are actually really good, but as you said, maybe he doesn't know what to do with them once he gets into them? Stuff like Moranis' "that's why I only invited clients instead of friends" speech could well be a good example - Reitman sets the scene, and lets these guys go do what they need to do? Pleasingly, a lot has been made in here of the NYC connection. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a Brit I don't see a lot of recognisable NY in Ghostbusters. The library is one location, and the WTC gets a brief showing in that bridge shot, but at the same time the reason why it feels like a great NY film to me is because of their familiarity with the city. The character is at street level and how a part of the city the lead cast are. I always liked how Hudson was able to keep up with the main three cast, too. He doesn't have the comedy pedigree of the other three, but he's not overshadowed in terms of his role. I've always been sad that he didn't go on to bigger and better things. Since most people have done this, I'll list my favourite scene: After they see the first ghost, Venkman asks them what they're going to do. Spengler's instinctive reaction is to reach for his calculator - Venkman's exasperated "stop THAT!" as he smashes the calculator out of his hand cracks me up every time.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
One of my favourite minor moments is Venkman getting a blob of slime in his eye when he's collecting the ectoplasm in the library, and his little freak-out to wipe the slime off himself. The "Dah!" when he gets something stuck to his foot always cracks me up. Fun fact: that entire scene with the slime was improvised - in the script, the first thing that happened in the basement was the falling bookshelf. Reitman decided on the morning of shooting that there needed to be more of a lead-in to seeing the ghost for the first time, so all the symmetrical book-stacking and ectoplasm stuff was made up just before filming. The 'Making Of Ghostbusters' book is full of cool little sidenotes like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 14:59
|
|
|
Peter Venkman posted:I think Bill Murray is the true foundation and anchor of the movie, and shows his complete and utter brilliance. Look at Peter Venkman's character: he's a scientist, yet uses his experiments only as a way to indulge his sadism, and seduce college girls (notice how even after the test subject gets a card right, he immediately ignores the result). He squanders his university's money--Dean Yeager was correct in everything he said about Venkman. He pushes the Ghostbusters idea onto his colleagues, and proceeds to exploit Ray's financial resources. He insults his secretary. He in no way believes in Dana Barret's problem, yet clings onto the case as a way of getting into her pants. He needlessly antagonizes Walter Peck, which leads to disaster. He sends the naive, earnest Ray Stantz to parley with Gozer. He sends his colleagues up the stairs to the roof first, in case of danger. This is something I noticed the more I watched the movie as I got older. Venkman is kind of a mooch and a jerk. He tries to get by, by doing as little as possible. Yet, somehow he is still awesome and lovable. He does right when the situation calls for it. I find it to be a very interesting balance and I think it makes for a very memorable character.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 15:03
|
|
|
StarSiren posted:This is something I noticed the more I watched the movie as I got older. Venkman is kind of a mooch and a jerk. He tries to get by, by doing as little as possible. I always got the impression that Venkman only had PhDs because he didn't want to give up being a student.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 15:05
|
|
|
boogs posted:My favourite joke is still this one. I never got the joke when I watched it as a kid, probably because I wasn't paying attention, but the way Venkman and Egon squirm together into the corner of the elevator, as if two feet extra distance is going to save them from a nuclear explosion, is hilarious. Also the "No Smoking" sign directly behind them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 15:30
|
|
|
Icon-Cat posted:
Huey Lewis sued Roy Parker, jr, over the Ghostbusters theme song and ended up settling out of court. The parties involved signed a confidentiality agreement over the terms and agreed not to make further comments on the lawsuit except in joint press releases. It's a complete rip-off of Lewis's song "I Want a New Drug". The strange thing is that Parker, jr, ended up suing Lewis 17 years later when Lewis made comments about the lawsuit for "Behind the Music: Huey Lewis and the News". Lewis said something to the effect that his "wave" was not for sale, but in effect he was forced to sell it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 15:37
|
|
|
Amazing thread for an amazing movie. Thank you for sharing this, sure looks like it took alot of work to put together.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 15:51
|
|
|
StarSiren posted:This is something I noticed the more I watched the movie as I got older. Venkman is kind of a mooch and a jerk. He tries to get by, by doing as little as possible. Harold Ramis pointed out that Bill Murray characters walk a line no one else can. I mean, hell, in the sequel, he insults a baby. INSULTS A BABY. All in good fun, but how many people can get away with that. When "Groundhog Day" was first in the works, Ramis was talking to Tom Hanks about the leading role. Ultimately it didn't click, and Hanks explained that with him in the lead, based on his persona etc., everyone would know that deep down that Phil is a nice guy and that's where the story's going; you needed someone with more of an edge. As Ramis put it, with Bill Murray in the leading role, you really feel he could go either way at any moment. I wanna shift gears and mention Dan Aykroyd here. Movies could never really figure out what to do with him, aside from this and "The Blues Brothers" and maaaybe "Driving Miss Daisy", which I have not actually seen but am told is classy. I mean, I love "Trading Places", but I could see another actor doing as good or better in his role, which you can't say about Eddie Murphy. I think he was just never the kind of guy who could carry a project all by himself--no one gets worked up by a movie concept of "Dan Aykroyd plays a _____", and his own sitcom was not exactly welcomed with open arms. He was only really good at being the star / the center of attention in little SNL skits like Julia Child or the immoral Halloween costume designer... ... What I'm getting at here is, he may have known himself better than the Hollywood industry did, and in his best-loved projects (GB and The Blues Brothers) he gave himself the supporting role to the more force-of-nature character, and played the engine driving the story forward rather than the cleanup batter (to mix metaphors). It's very telling how Murray calls him, in what I'm guessing is an ad-lib, "The heart of the Ghostbusters". I don't think today's movies about action-hero teams realize that 'the heart' is a valid member of the team. Or if they do, they make the heart the lead, sort of the 'normal' character to ground the action, which just leads to a maudlin soppy generic character. Think of "South Park" for something that gets it right. I'd say Kyle's role in South Park is much like Ray's in GB; the show uses Stan or Cartman as an aggressive leads and leans on Kyle as a supporting force, a basic center. lots of CineD goons posted:Ghostbusters was my first DVD People may not remember this based on age or whatever, but back when DVD was brand-new and we watched them on stone televisions in caves, Ghostbusters used to be one of the benchmark DVDs that other DVDs got compared to, especially when it came to extras. The commentary was especially well-noted in reviews (it's hilarious in retrospect because the reviews had to explain what a director's commentary was and why you'd want one). Then "The Matrix" came out on DVD and became the benchmark at least as far as video and audio were concerned. Fiiiiiiine. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 16:13
|
|
|
Wank posted:When they bust Slimer and Peter is telling how much the Hotel owes them and he has no idea what it costs and the look of Egon showing him: "...we are having a special this week on proton charging and storage of the beast." The best part of this -- and one that I only noticed a few years ago despite watching the movie about once a month -- is that while Peter is doing his schtick, Egon is holding up his fingers to signal to Venkman how much money each item should cost. I lost my poo poo when I finally saw it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 16:51
|
|
|
Ghost Busters is probably the first movie I can recall watching, although I can never be certain if it were that or Little Shop of Horrors. While Ghost Busters is a legitimate classic, the second film is still enjoyable to me if you ignore the fact it's pretty well a cash-in sequel. It's nowhere near as good as the first, but the Statue of Liberty scene is still really cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 17:24
|
|
|
I think one thing that may have possibly lead to Ghostbusters being as great as it was is that it was made the same time as Gremlins, only a few blocks away. The cast and crew of both movies would frequently visit each other just to hang out and see what everyone was up to. I think both movies benefit from the shared New Yorkness and healthy competition, and they both went on to be released the same day. 1984 was so much better than George Orwell would have us believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 17:29
|
|
|
I have two cents of trivia to add! The original design for the Library ghost was rejected as too scary, as Robert Edlund was effects man on both films, the rejected design was reused later in "Fright Night". At one time Ray would have shouted "GET HER!" and we would have seen something like this.  Fuuuuuuuuuck v:edit:v 67 and still making love fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 17:29
|
|
|
^^^ Edit: GET HER  Matlock posted:the second film is still enjoyable to me if you ignore the fact it's pretty well a cash-in sequel. The problem with Ghostbusters II is that it's so much more slick than the original. Elmer Bernstein's oddball score was replaced by Randy Edelman noodling around on his synths, the cinematography is ridiculously clean, etc. It looks and feels like a standard Hollywood franchise entry, as opposed to the uniqueness of the original, which doesn't follow any "traditional" rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 17:32
|
|
|
tadashi posted:Huey Lewis sued Roy Parker, jr, over the Ghostbusters theme song and ended up settling out of court. The parties involved signed a confidentiality agreement over the terms and agreed not to make further comments on the lawsuit except in joint press releases. It's a complete rip-off of Lewis's song "I Want a New Drug". In fact, that whole fiasco is what prompted Huey Lewis to agree to write a couple songs for Back to the Future. I'd say it worked out in Lewis' favor, since "The Power of Love" landed him a freakin' Oscar nomination for Best Original Song. But back to Ghostbusters... One of the things that I love learning about a movie is its production history: IMDb posted:In 1982 producers Ivan Reitman, Joe Medjuck and Michael C. Gross were planning to make The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie, Douglas Adams wrote three drafts for them per his contract. In this occasion Medjuck and Gross were considering Bill Murray or Dan Aykroyd to play Ford Prefect, but then Aykroyd sent them his idea for this movie Ghost Busters and they decided to make it instead. Now think about this for a moment. In the early 1980s, the director, writer, producers, and primary cast of Ghostbusters were working to converge on a somewhat similar $30 million sci-fi/comedy. Imagine a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy film that plays identically to Ghostbusters (in terms of direction, script, design, budget, etc.). Ghostbusters bears little in common with Douglas Adams' books, but I find this piece of Ghostbusters history fascinating, if only to imagine what could have been... Jay Dub fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 17:35
|
|
|
I'm slick as gently caress that's why I like the second one more. What the hell? There's a poster named John Wilkes Booth?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 17:35
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of Ghostbusters, but I read the OP out of curiosity, and I just want to say: great job. You really conveyed the things that make this movie great for you without coming off like a slobbering fanboy. Even though I'm still not won over by the film, I like your enthusiasm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 17:36
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:I just rewatched Ghostbusters about a week ago with my friend, and it was the first time I had noticed this joke. One joke I've always noticed and yet have only...appreciated, I guess, recently is the one where Venkman and Ray are on the steps of the college, and Venkman suggests that they go into business for themselves. Ray goes "This ecto-containment unit that Spengler and I have in mind is going to take a load of bread to capitalize. Where are we going to get the money?" Venkman is shaking is head, as if to say, "Hey, don't even worry about it. I got it all figured out", but instead he just goes "I don't know. I don't know." I don't know why, but recently that's been cracking me up whenever I see the movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 18:15
|
|
|
Twanki posted:"GET HER!" A brief derail: I saw the tail end of "Fright Night" on TV once, reeeeeeal late at night, not really knowing what it was (I had to IMDB things afterward). The reveal of that face was scarier than 95% of all horror movies I have ever seen. Any fool can tell the drat thing's fake but it's just so creepy. And what does it do to be so creepy? Honestly, only one thing really stands out: take one human body part (the mouth) and just make it terrifyingly huge. It's such a SIMPLE principle and yet it scared the everliving crap out of me. I was thrilled to find out about that bit of trivia, although your Photoshop certainly enhanced it. Back on topic: One thing I think really works about Ghostbusters that didn't really come up in the sequel or (understandably) the cartoon show was religion. No, I'm not suggesting the movie has an actual take on religion or faith or anything like that, just that it kept referring back to the presence of religion and gods and such in people's lives. Gozer was a god... the building was a temple... there were Gozer worshippers back in Mesopotamian (big word) times... Then Ray and Winston have the talk in the car about ancient religions and their myths about the end of the world... Then the Archbishop shows up and gives a little speech about "religious implications"... the "forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes" bit... Then you see doomsday sign-wavers and shaven-headed Hare Krishna guys... then the Ghostbusters are hailed as heroes and (if you like) messiahs by happy rabbis who only moments ago were praying about the end of the world... (then a church is stepped on, and the offender is strongly chastized for it) And one of the last images in the film is of priests blessing the car as it backs up and drives away. What this all means in some academic sense, I could not say, and it probably depends as much on your own view of religion and God as anything. What it does for the film, though, is ground the whole mess in something deeper--in something primal. We can take the ghosts more seriously because we feel that they're tied to something that we DO take seriously, as if the film is saying: kids, this is even MORE serious than most of the bad guys in movies you watch. I mean, we all like genre movies, but most of their villains don't actually want to DESTROY the world, even if that is the cliche. Most of them want something for themselves. Even Vigo. The only beloved 80s-kids movie that I remember was about the _end_ of the world rather than "world would still be around but just suck a lot" was The Never-Ending Story, whose "nothing" concept is actually a pretty sophisticated and disturbing villain when you come right down to it. Be it Christian, Jewish or Hare Krishna guy, all elements of Eschatology are blended together in a virtual only-in-New-York United Nations of end-of-the-world fears. "Ghostbusters" constantly reminds us of the primal social/cultural/literary forces that give credence to its antagonist, and by association the importance of its protagonists. I think about those scenes a lot, in part because I am interested in religion. Note how quiet they are. Ray or Winston's conversation in the car, just the soft hum of the engine, and two serious men's hushed voices. Or the archbishop in the Mayor's office, just the dead hum of a man speaking in a carpeted office. Play them out of context and they would be effective in a serious 'genre' movie. If you tried to make that movie today, Ray and Winston's conversation would have thudding bass and cello underscoring it, and we might even dissolve into a CGI vision of the future. Actually, no it wouldn't. Because such a scene wouldn't exist at all. It would be swept aside in favor of 'moving the story forward', whatever that means, instead of reminding us why the story is important to begin with. I haven't seen Michael Bay's Transformers movies, but I am certain that Shia and Megan do not sit in Bumblebee and have a quiet, frightened conversation of what all this might mean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 18:26
|
|
|
One thing I love about this movie is how well it works even WITHOUT all the comedy. Like the OP said, it's got fantastic production value and artistry. Parts of this movie are even genuinely scary. For example, at the beginning with the librarian, the music and the mood are actually pretty creepy as she's walking around reshelving books. And also when Dana is possessed by Zuul, what with the weird impressions being made on the door and the low growling. "Oh poo poo..." is goddamn right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 18:27
|
|
|
Quality_Guaranteed posted:One thing I love about this movie is how well it works even WITHOUT all the comedy. Like the OP said, it's got fantastic production value and artistry. Parts of this movie are even genuinely scary. For example, at the beginning with the librarian, the music and the mood are actually pretty creepy as she's walking around reshelving books. And also when Dana is possessed by Zuul, what with the weird impressions being made on the door and the low growling. "Oh poo poo..." is goddamn right. I think what made the horror elements effective (aside from special effects) is the fact that you really don't see them coming, especially since the movie is seen by the general, movie-going public as a comedy. My girlfriend, who hadn't seen GB1 only GB2 and just watched this with me two weeks ago, also said "oh poo poo" during that scene. She was genuinely freaked out by the hands coming out of the chair. It's a pretty hosed up situation. On a side note, once the movie was over she couldn't get over how much more she liked it than GB2. One thing she noted was how much more "real" it seemed than GB2, just as a few have pointed out in this thread. Great thread echoplex. Way to earn that 'crazy eights' badge 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 18:35
|
|
|
I'm definitely with the poster who said he and his friends basically have 'GB quote-offs', we do the same thing in my circle of friends  My favourite scene in the film is when they're in the prison cell, almost chiefly for Murray's delivery: (After, "your girlfriend lives in the corner penthouse of Spook Central") "...she's not my girlfriend."
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 18:48
|
|
|
Without a doubt, the corner stone performance in the movie is delivered by Bill Murray. He takes lines that would otherwise be mundane and throw-away and gives them a smarmy, smirking sarcasm. Even in his physical actions. One of my favorite passable moments is when they get their first call to the hotel, instead of setting down his box of chinese food and chopsticks... He takes it down the pole with him. Also, when he runs and leaps over the divider from "his office" when Dana arrives at the firehouse you hear the tip of his toe kick the wood. That always cracks me up and conjures images for me of Bill Murray completely nosediving into the floor if he hadn't cleared that divider. One of my favorite single-lines from a character is also in this movie. From the hotel maid: "What the hell are you DOIN'?"  Such a classic flick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 18:49
|
|
|
Icon-Cat posted:I wanna shift gears and mention Dan Aykroyd here. Movies could never really figure out what to do with him, aside from this and "The Blues Brothers" and maaaybe "Driving Miss Daisy", which I have not actually seen but am told is classy.  Dan couldn't have been replaced in Trading Places. Being able to feel empathy for that character is important because our usual reaction to guy like him is to hate the upper-class. He keeps him flawed but likable, so we can care about the character. As with Ray, Dan's just too cute to hate  He is great playing nerdy tech guys. He's a bit like that as Elwood, and he was totally perfect in 1941 (his talent for technical dialogue got him the role) and Spies Like Us for that reason. So it's no shocker that Aykroyd now thinks he might have Asperger's. It all makes sense now.  As as child he was labeled a Schizo, but clearly he is sane.quote:I don't think today's movies about action-hero teams realize that 'the heart' is a valid member of the team. Or if they do, they make the heart the lead, sort of the 'normal' character to ground the action, which just leads to a maudlin soppy generic character. EDIT: 2 more bad-rear end Dan facts: - a snake once bit him during an SNL sketch and he didn't even flinch - has webbed toes Ema Nymton fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 19:03
|
|
|
Ema Nymton posted:As as child he was labeled a Schizo, but clearly he is sane. May not be entirely sane. He truly, completely, believes in UFOs. Not even open minded in the Carl Sagan sense, but I mean he's got like an encyclopaedic knowledge of visits, abductions, all sorts of stuff. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8993422112864357113 This video is fascinating as hell. And I have to believe it was made only to show case Aykroyd's craziness. I love Ghostbusters, and Dan is my favorite of the group. But he's out of his mind. gregday fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 19:19
|
|
|
Paradox86 posted:Also, when he runs and leaps over the divider from "his office" when Dana arrives at the firehouse you hear the tip of his toe kick the wood. That always cracks me up and conjures images for me of Bill Murray completely nosediving into the floor if he hadn't cleared that divider. Ivan Reitman mentions on the DVD commentary that he nearly had a heart attack when Murray just barely cleared the swinging door. I imagine it would have been a very different movie had Murray needed reconstructive facial surgery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 19:21
|
|
|
I always loved GB... even the second one (though to a lesser extent). Born in '81, I grew up with this film (and all of the others mentioned in this thread, interestingly). I'm ashamed to admit I haven't seen GB in years. As you get older, rewatching movies just doesn't seem to happen so much as life gets busier. But tonight, Ghostbusters will be watched again. The local library has a HUGE movie collection (I hope they have the DVD) and one of my favorite things to do is show my 6 y/o stepson the movies I was watching at his age. Obviously, some things like "Aliens," "Commando," and "RoboCop" aren't allowed per his mother, but having "Batteries not Included," "2001," and "The Goonies" given an amazing response from him I think that Ghostbusters will also go over well. Aside from the CGI kids movies that get pumped out like clockwork these days, my stepson digs the older films. Asked about why he likes them, he said, "They seem more real." A six year old understanding suspension of disbelief even though he lacks the vocabulary. Awesome. Especially considering we have no television whatsoever, and he's limited to watching only 3 movies per week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 19:24
|
|
|
Icon-Cat posted:Back on topic: I've always found this scene interesting, and I think a lesser movie would have cut such a scene out for being inessential to the plot and comedy. If I remember correctly, there really aren't any funny lines in this scene. Its just this little, quiet, and serious scene that goes a long way in developing the "heart" of the movie. Fantastic OP and fantastic thread. Ghostbusters really is a perfect film (as an action/horror/comedy). I would rank it as one of the best non-serious movies ever made, along with Back to the Future and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? I hadn't seen this posted yet, so, for everyone's enjoyment, Ghostbusters: Sweded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMdwkpVV0QA
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 19:42
|
|
|
gregday posted:May not be entirely sane. He truly, completely, believes in UFOs. Not even open minded in the Carl Sagan sense, but I mean he's got like an encyclopaedic knowledge of visits, abductions, all sorts of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 19:47
|
|
|
Malaleb posted:I've always found this scene interesting, and I think a lesser movie would have cut such a scene out for being inessential to the plot and comedy. If I remember correctly, there really aren't any funny lines in this scene. Its just this little, quiet, and serious scene that goes a long way in developing the "heart" of the movie. Yeah, I totally agree about that scene--it kinda amps up the "threat level", ya know? It just works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 19:51
|
|
|
I love the poo poo out of both movies, and they've always existed in my mind as having the most perfect cast possible, down to the smallest bit parts. So I was all the more shocked to see in my recent rewatch how absolutely horrendous Sigourney Weaver's acting was in the second film. Oh god, I will love the woman forever just for giving me Ripley, but I couldn't believe my eyes at how she just didn't give a flying gently caress in GB 2. She was perfect in part 1 though, nothing will change that at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 19:52
|
|
|
Twanki posted:I have two cents of trivia to add! This part is on the DVD version of this movie, I had to watch it because of this thread. I loved both movies, but this OP finally thought me why..
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 20:23
|
|
|
Icon-Cat posted:Religion chat This is actually another aspect I really like about the Ghostbusters. They are so scientific about spirits. They don't come at hauntings with holy water and incantations, the come with calculators and nuclear accelerators. One of Egon's lines is a perfect example: "I'm terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought."
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 21:13
|
|
|
Twanki posted:I have two cents of trivia to add! Even though it was made less scary, as a kid, the librarian ghost scene still had me squeezing my eyes shut for a moment every time I watched the movie. A huge amount of the movie went over my head when watching it then, but the thing that probably took me the longest time to realize, was that the Stay Puft marshmallow man is actually Gozer again, in a new form. I always thought of it as a monster Gozer had summoned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 21:33
|
|
|
echoplex posted:
Please tell me you have this in a higher resolution. This picture is the definition of "badass."
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 22:34
|
|
|
Twanki posted:I have two cents of trivia to add! Anyone have a screencap of the thing in Fright Night? Haven't seen it. EDIT: I'm guessing it's this thing?  You're all welcome
Rick Sanchez fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 22:52
|
|
|
davidspackage posted:Even though it was made less scary, as a kid, the librarian ghost scene still had me squeezing my eyes shut for a moment every time I watched the movie. I still feel uneasy looking at stills of the fright night make-up. The actual library ghost freaked the hell out of me, if it had looked even close to my (half-assed) photoshop, I would still be shittitng myself right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 22:52
|
|
|
Paul Allen posted:Anyone have a screencap of the thing in Fright Night? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN_cJ3vhfA0&feature=related TheZissou posted:Please tell me you have this in a higher resolution. This picture is the definition of "badass." Fraid not. It's on Ghostbusters.com (I think). It must exist as a promo photo somewhere
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 22:54
|
|
|
echoplex posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN_cJ3vhfA0&feature=related Man, I need to gently caress around with photoshop, do a fan-edit with that ghost reinstated in the library. Your clip shows just the right amount of mouth movement to make it complete. Looking at the ghostbusters sequence as is, it's only 1 second or so of editing, I can't imagine it would be far above piss-easy. Ninjedit, yeah thats the still I used beforehand. gently caress me, I said it before, but even now to think of that busting out in the opening sequence, as a child I wouldn't have dared to watch the rest of the film. It was a very good call replacing it. 67 and still making love fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 23:27
|
|
|
Paul Allen posted:I think what made the horror elements effective (aside from special effects) is the fact that you really don't see them coming, especially since the movie is seen by the general, movie-going public as a comedy. My girlfriend, who hadn't seen GB1 only GB2 and just watched this with me two weeks ago, also said "oh poo poo" during that scene. She was genuinely freaked out by the hands coming out of the chair. It's a pretty hosed up situation. I got some of that feeling back while playing "Ghostbusters the Video Game." Some of the horror elements, especially in the public library and in Ivo Shandor's estate, were genuinely creepy and otherworldly. The idea of going up against Shandor just made it so much worse. Obviously, the game ain't the movie in terms of writing, acting or design. But it's worth noting. "Ghostbusters" is so familiar now that it's hard to remember how scary it could be when I watched it as a kid in the theater. The game restored some of that feeling to the franchise, at least for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
The Scolari brothers! Friends of yours?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 23:50
|
|