Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

All I could really think watching the trailer is that it looked a whole lot more like a Stranger Things spinoff. That isn't a criticism or anything it's just kind of hilariously how bluntly they went "Okay but what if Ghostbusters but also Stranger Things?"

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Noob Saibot posted:

Ghostbusters is as much a “comedy” as Indiana Jones and Star Wars are comedies

Not really, no. The bulk of Ghostbusters is built around setting up and performing jokes and even when it gets super serious it is in service to making more jokes. The final climax involves them fighting a giant marshmallow man. The primary cast are comedians. It is part of what makes it endearing that it is both funny and heartfelt.

In comparison Indiana Jones and Star Wars have funny moments but they are not built in service of jokes.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

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 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.

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.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Darko posted:

Winston wasn't even around for the direct sequel Sega Genesis game.

At least he had plenty to do in the PS3/360 game and they even established he got his doctorate between adventures.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

King Vidiot posted:

Ghostbusters definitely led me to have some less-than-good ideas of what constituted a positive role model. I thought Venkman was "cool" because he was funny, and his assholishness and creepy behavior flew over my head. It's why I later thought you were supposed to root for characters like Duckman, etc.

A good jerk character can make you laugh, but you still need to understand that they're an rear end in a top hat.

Ghostbusters certainly had young me dangerously close to going down the road of "How dare those EPA people tell those hard working smart guys what to do. See? Look how inept they are!" where these days it's kinda not hard to notice that Walter Peck spends a lot of time actually trying to talk to the Ghostbusters about the unlicensed nuclear devices they have in the middle of loving Manhattan and in return Peter basically blows him off and ignores him at every chance until he is literally forced to get the police to come in because the Ghostbusters won't talk to him.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

King Vidiot posted:

Imminent destruction of NYC aside, the guys thought that crossing the streams would wipe all of Manhattan out in a single blast but they did it anyways because there was a "slim chance they'd survive". They also did it with no real idea what they were doing, or that it would have any effect on the Gozer portal.

I also wonder about Venkman's earlier speech about fate and karma, and how everything that happens in the movie seems predestined. Venkman couldn't help but be a poo poo to Peck, Peck couldn't help but flex his authority and gently caress around with dangerous technology he'd never seen before. Did Shandor know this, was he banking on a team of "ghostbusters" to come along, focus all of the psychic energy in NYC at a single location only to have it all released in a pissing contest between two assholes, resulting in all of those restless spirits being pulled into a conduit at the top of his building and summoning Gozer?

I mostly want to bring this up because:
Peck was absolutely 100% not flexing his authority. He had a genuine sit down conversation with Peter where Peter absolute-loving-lutely blew off everything he said. Even after the "magic word" like Peck was reasonable enough to say please Venkmen still blew him off.

Even if you blame him for being too quick to turn off the storage facility, the fact that it only took the power shutting off for the storage facility to explode meant it was a ticking time bomb since they would have to depend on there never being a power outage ever in their lovely rented firehouse. (And in fact Peter asks about the grid earlier in the film and it says it isn't holding up well.)

ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Aug 8, 2021

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

King Vidiot posted:

Point taken about Peck, we're only shown Peck from the GB's (and Reitman's) point of view. But I would think that the containment unit would have a backup generator. The drat thing is a prison for ghosts, you don't set up a prison for ghosts if a power outage is just going to let all of them go at once.

You do if you're the Ghostbusters though. In fact the very first thing Peter does after meeting Peck is come downstairs, mention that he showed up, and then ask if "the grid is holding up." Plus it's the power that is shut off, not the unit itself, so if it had any sort of backup generator it presumably should have kicked in right there and then.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

King Vidiot posted:

I don't know, to me it looked like what they shut off was the storage unit itself plus the backup generators and/or failsafes. Egon says they "shut off the protection grid" which I assume is some sort of backup or failsafe. If they cut the power they just would've gone straight for the circuit breaker and cut it off there.

It's the guy from the power company doing it for one and it looks a lot more like he's turning off a power box. I can't read the note on it beyond "do not turn off" but it looks like something you'd see in most buildings (I have something super similar at my office) and not part of the overall thing. When they're teaching Winston how to use the unit Ray is doing something to the box next to it but not it.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Admiral Joeslop posted:

$11,500 in 1984 is equivalent to $30,072.22 today.

1989 (GB2) it's only $25,197.61.

So not all that great but it seemed like reasonably easy work if you're not the scientist or engineer guy.

I also imagine that if you saved the world it might make you want to keep hanging out at that job for a bit.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

I thought the joke was a lot simpler. Ray was the guy with the money so if he said they take it Peter and Egon can't really say no.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Snowglobe of Doom posted:

Naw they hated each other's guts on sight and were immediately mocking and belittling each other. Venkman deliberately got ectoplasm all over Peck and Peck was being smarmy as hell, especially when he repeatedly refused to call him Doctor Venkman and kept calling him Mister Venkman over and over and over

Peter literally begins by spreading slime on the dude. He's an unlikable dick but Peter started the aggro there and his statement afterwards to the others makes it clear they were expecting a visit and Peter's behavior was intentional blowoff and would have happened to any EPA guy.

And again, the EPA is 100% in the right to ask to investigate the mysterious basement of the guys with nuclear lasers. Peter on the other hand is aware that what they are doing veers wildly between illegal and massively dangerous and is trying to push it off.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

90% of the ghosts we see in the movies are less 'dangerous and evil' and more 'kind of pests, seemingly mostly harmless but still something you want out of your house.' Which fits the Exterminator theme. There are malicious ghosts but they usually are there under the influence of some greater evil power rather than anything else.

I say this not because I want a Harold Ramis ghost but because I would put money down on "Bill Murray dies, appears briefly as a ghost" as a plot point.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Timby posted:

God, I hate that loving comic.

Come on, when you die wouldn't you want to be remembered as an eternal prisoner in a group of unhinged maniacs + the dude they hired's basement?

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Violator posted:

Does releasing scary/paranormal movies really not receive any bump from releasing in October? Or is this movie considered above such frivolities and you only do that for movies that need an additional gimmick like Saw? “Hocus Pocus 2, now coming in April!!”

I don't think there's any direct connection. There's a small bump probably thanks to marketing but I don't think any of the most successful horror franchises depend on Halloween, including the titular Halloween. I think Saw was the only one to really cling to that?

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

I am just concerned because a lot of the positive reviews remind me of The Force Awakens in that it is a good film because it is reverent and nostalgic and not because it stands on its own two legs.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Au Revoir Shosanna posted:

I'd watch Rian Johnson's The Last Ghostbuster.

It would own because it would mildly criticize the idea of running a nuclear powered for profit ghost prison and people would lose their mind.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

PriorMarcus posted:

I think a lot of the negative reactions to the nostalgia overload of the climax come from a CGI Egon showing up for some smaltzy emotional climax to the family drama but most reviews can't mention that directly.

What gently caress is that confirmed?? gently caress, I don't want a creepy Tarkin Egon...

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007


Well that is horrifically depressing

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Honestly I think I'd put 2016 over this. It just felt too engrossed in reverence and too unambitious. It really reminded me of GB2 but one step removed castwise.

Ghostbusters stands on its own and every new one just feels like "Remember Ghostbusters?" Ghostbusters is amazing but being unable to progress remains its biggest problem. The closest the series has had to progress is the drat cartoon.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

ChesterJT posted:

Really enjoyed this, a lot of fun. Seen a few critics complain about the call backs and things like that, not sure what people were expecting. I loved every one of them and they knew what their fans wanted to see.

I would argue they didn't know what their fans wanted to see which is why people are complaining about it. I'd probably be more favorable to the callbacks if I wasn't a big fan who grabbed every Ghostbusters thing I could, but I already had Ghostbusters 2, Ghostbusters the game and Ghostbusters 2016 to fill my quota of "here are references and callbacks and thinly veiled retreads of the original Ghostbusters." I wanted something new from Ghostbusters.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Alan_Shore posted:

So in conclusion, don't tease us, make the next Ghostbusters film RIGHT NOW with the three we have left. It can be done!

I think you would be very disappointment in what you'd get from an exhausted 70 year old Bill Murray and Dan Ackroyd desperately trying to bring energy to a role they didn't even have the energy to do twice.

Ernie Hudson would own but when doesn't he?

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

For the love of Christ literally all you need to do is making anything but Vigo or Gozer. Anything! Have them fight the Blowjob Ghost and Titanic Ghost if you're desperate to not actually create something new because at least it would be loving not Vigo or Gozer.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

I think 2016 has issues and is nowhere as good as the original. That said I think taken on its own merits it stands better than 2 and Afterlife as a movie. I'd probably still watch 2 over it but 2 depends a whole lot on the love of the characters from the first film for it to work and I think it flops a lot harder without that. (Also I am freely willing to admit I have so much nostalgia for it from when I was a kid and controlling the Statue of Liberty with an NES controller was the coolest thing in the world that my opinion is probably biased towards it.)

That said I've been rewatching some of RGB and man that is a genuinely better take on Ghostbusters than anything besides the first movie. I have no idea if Extreme Ghostbusters is any good sadly but maybe I'll give it a shot and see which version of "Egon's Next Gen" I like more. I suspect Afterlife will come out ahead but we'll see.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

To be honest I think "killing" ghosts is less uncomfortable than imprisoning them in the modern day. Like I like the ghost traps as much as anyone but "private contractors run a for profit prison with no possibility of escape or parol" reaaaaallly loving sucks in this day and age

"We discorporate the ghosts and they go to the afterlife" still sticks to the exterminator analogy without the really creepy idea of Peter Venkman being responsible for your eternal imprisonment

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Groovelord Neato posted:

Ghosts are demonic and must be kept in some sort of dimensional prison.

Afterlife disagrees!

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Xenomrph posted:

For every time you don’t watch Afterlife, I’m going to watch it twice. Doubly so for that action figure two-pack. :colbert:

Xenomrph no you need to be able to eat and sleep

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Astrochicken posted:

Did people here really not enjoy ghostbusters 2?

"Ghostbusters 2 is a thinly veiled rehash of the first where most of the cast very clearly does not want to be there" isn't exactly a hot take. Many people (myself included) still enjoy it but it's very much a lesser film.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

I don't think the "Ghosts only appear during maximum Gozer" stuff makes any sense because Ray and Egon clearly had been researching it for a long rear end time and Tobin's Spirit Guide appears to be at least partially accurate. It makes sense they are not as common (thus why the Librarian Ghost is such a big deal because they treat it like it's a *way* bigger deal than just a standard ghost) but they probably existed.

Hell if you wanted to do something different just say that most American cities are too young to have a nice big ghost buildup (that doesn't involve uncomfortably racist pre-colonial ghosts) and set it in England or something. Get Simon Pegg involved.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Kinda mean-spirited to poo poo on those guys for not having a bunch of work done and actually letting themselves age. (tbh I did refer to them as Damned Ackroyd and Ill Murray to a friend)

Did Sigourney Weaver actually have work done or are you assuming a woman must have had cosmetic surgery if she aged remotely well?

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Alan_Shore posted:

Dan and Ernie deserve one more top billing movie.

So do Annie and Rick.

I also want to see Staypuft in amazing cgi, sue me

I mean do you really think Staypuft in 2025 CGI is really going to look much better than Staypuft in 2016 CGI?

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Alan_Shore posted:

There was no Staypuft in 2016

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

The Ghostbusters are naked ambitious capitalists' who use unlicensed dangerous technology in the middle of a crowded city and loving hate the EPA. Peter Venkman gives electric shocks to people under false pretenses so he can flirt with a student. He is a bad person.

They are not "the bad guys' because they are battling horrible monsters who want to destroy the world but they are are literally in context bad people and recognize they are bad people. It just so happens in the year 2022 it's very difficult to ignore that they are the kind of bad people who are actually going to destroy the world instead of the fun fictional kind.

I still like Ghostbusters a whole lot but "are the ghostsbusters bad" isn't brain worms, it is literally a surface-level reading that is saved by an incredibly charismatic cast and funny script. You can both enjoy something and recognize "holy poo poo" at what it says.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007


*Literally* the text of the film unless you think you're supposed to think Peter Venkmen is anything but a 'game show host'

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Mooseontheloose posted:

Reminder our introduction to Peter is lying in an experiment to sleep with a student.

Yeah it has been said and said again.

If anyone but Bill Murray played that role it would be an atrocity. Peter Venkman only works because of Bill Murray. You could maybe MAYBE replace Egon and Ray (but it'd be worse for it) and Ernie Hundson frigging rocks but Winston isn't given enough to do so you could theoretically swap him out too, but Venkman without Murray is the absolute worst kind of person and Ghostbusters does not work with any other actor in that role.

It is a testament to Murray's charisma and talent that he turns "weird abusive rear end in a top hat sexual predator" into one of the most beloved characters of all time.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Narsham posted:

You seem to be ignoring the people posting right here who do not find Venkman as "one of the most beloved characters of all time" and are instead suggesting that the Murray/Venkman shtick hasn't aged very well.

Murray's own version of this hasn't aged especially well, either, but he tends to get a pass because he's charismatic and talented. But then again, so is Bill Cosby, and he shouldn't have been getting a pass on what he was doing for decades. Afterlife understood that enough to give us the post-movie scene where Venkman gets a taste of his own medicine.

The OG Ghostbusters aren't especially good people, they're just our comedy protagonists, so we give them the same leeway you might give to the terrible characters who are the main cast of Seinfeld or a similar sitcom. If you compare with the cast of The Real Ghostbusters, you'll find that the cartoon versions are much closer to where I think many people's memories are of the characters, for obvious reasons. But if you found someone completely ignorant of the characters or the franchise and showed them the first movie, I suspect the leeway for "weird abusive rear end in a top hat sexual predator" would be considerably smaller than it was in 1984. For example, I found the "hitting on a coed experiment" scene funny when I saw the movie at age 12, but now it doesn't seem very amusing because this sort of thing happens in real life and isn't funny at all to someone who works in a similar environment. If Venkman were the target of the humor, it'd be fine, but he isn't. That I still like the movie and Venkman doesn't mean I don't find that scene cringeworthy now.

I'm arguing the exact same thing as you.

Alan_Shore posted:

How does he "gaslight" her about what happened in her kitchen? There was nothing in there. Definitely no animals in there. The instrument didn't pick up anything and he was pretty sure he was using it correctly. He even says he believes her.

What do you mean by "gaslight"?

She was their only client, of course he goes to inspect her apartment. Yes he wanted to get closer to her but she also paid in advance. I mean, I'm sure she expected them to come check out her apartment to see if it was haunted, she hadn't been back there in 3 days

Venkman seems to have little to no idea how anything actually works. He also expresses little interest in learning how anything works. He knows the Proton Pack since it's point-and-shoot but during that scene he makes it clear he's not actually aware of what is going on.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Alan_Shore posted:

So, we're agreeing that Venkman isn't a gaslighting, abusive rapist?

Thank goodness

I mean he is literally two of those things for sure. He is both abusive and gaslighting in the scene we are introduced to him. Literally. The joke is that he's giving someone electric shocks so he can flirt with a girl and is lying to both of them. He is probably not a rapist but is absolutely a sex pest.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

The Merkinman posted:

The animated film or series should take place between Ghostbusters 2 and Afterlife and really explain what the hell Egon did to Ray that was so bad, that Ray wouldn't even investigate the Shandor Mining Company's operation in Summerville.

He said that aliens don't care about 9/11 and Crystal Skull Vodka sucks

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

GB2 has the Louis as a lawyer scene which is one of the best scenes in the franchise

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

The lesson of Die Hard is that it is okay for police to murder children and keep their job because they might shoot a terrorist some day.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007


I have to say that I am not sure I would to be eulogized as "the blowjob ghost"

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply