Ghostbusters (2016) Reboot: Does Anyone Actually Remember This?

[McAvoy]

Should create a new post this and the Star Wars stuff. Especially since the new Ghostbusters movie is out. Which means it will be compare to the the original but also the 2016 one.

Fan reviews are positive from what I have seen.

[Frustration]

Red Letter Media was utterly disappointed in it. They even had a special emergency episode of Half in the Bag to talk about what they didn't like about the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMtrjNPcjR0

[clearspira]

Double Toasted gave it a Rental - which on their scale would be a 5/10.

[Beastro]

Red Letter Media was utterly disappointed in it. They even had a special emergency episode of Half in the Bag to talk about what they didn't like about the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMtrjNPcjR0

They were spot on (Except Mike thinking the first movie critiqued capitalism, it was made to praise Libertarianism, Ivan Reitman even said so).

What was the worst was the completely different tone of the film. Ghostbusters is deadpan, snarky irreverence towards the supernatural and entrepreneurs defeating it, not an awe-filled journey of rediscovery. Murray, too. The look on his face when he shows up at the end was the one dogs wear when they're dressed up silly and laughed at.

[clearspira]

Y'know... with all of the critique of 2016, no one ever seems to mention Ghostbusters 2 which was definitely on a level of crap even if it is better in some regards. Says a lot about 2 as a film actually: that no one cares enough about it to ever bring it up.

[Beastro]

Y'know... with all of the critique of 2016, no one ever seems to mention Ghostbusters 2 which was definitely on a level of crap even if it is better in some regards. Says a lot about 2 as a film actually: that no one cares enough about it to ever bring it up.

Ghostbusters 2 was a typical 80ishs sequel where it was an incremental plot development (think Look Who's Talking 1 and 2) that nonetheless was a plot repeat. The major issue was that the tone is a limp, paint by numbers feeling and the main cast (cept Hudson) clearly doesn't want to be in the film (and they didn't, they wanting GB to be a one off and were pushed into a sequel.).

The major difference was that it tried to do the same things differently and kinda succeeded. Vigo is a looming, god-like antagonist trying to break into reality but stands on his own in not being a repeat, the ooze is a new addition to expand upon the paranormal science angle that was taken up by establishing the setting in the last, and we get the walking Statue of Liberty helping out instead of the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man as a threat.

I think the big difference is Vigo. Something about him was distinct enough that he remained in pop culture and is put into memes. I'd argue that his internet presence is larger than Gozer. There is simply something iconic about him and how he spends most of the film posing frozen in a painting like he was.

If anything, it's a shame he and these other points were put into such a poor sequel.

[McAvoy]

Y'know... with all of the critique of 2016, no one ever seems to mention Ghostbusters 2 which was definitely on a level of crap even if it is better in some regards. Says a lot about 2 as a film actually: that no one cares enough about it to ever bring it up.

Ghostbusters 2 was a typical 80ishs sequel where it was an incremental plot development (think Look Who's Talking 1 and 2) that nonetheless was a plot repeat. The major issue was that the tone is a limp, paint by numbers feeling and the main cast (cept Hudson) clearly doesn't want to be in the film (and they didn't, they wanting GB to be a one off and were pushed into a sequel.).

The major difference was that it tried to do the same things differently and kinda succeeded. Vigo is a looming, god-like antagonist trying to break into reality but stands on his own in not being a repeat, the ooze is a new addition to expand upon the paranormal science angle that was taken up by establishing the setting in the last, and we get the walking Statue of Liberty helping out instead of the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man as a threat.

I think the big difference is Vigo. Something about him was distinct enough that he remained in pop culture and is put into memes. I'd argue that his internet presence is larger than Gozer. There is simply something iconic about him and how he spends most of the film posing frozen in a painting like he was.

If anything, it's a shame he and these other points were put into such a poor sequel.

Definitely. Ghostbusters 2 just goes in the same trend as sequels. I personally don't think it's crap either.

I compare it to like Robocop and Robocop 2.

[Beastro]

Y'know... with all of the critique of 2016, no one ever seems to mention Ghostbusters 2 which was definitely on a level of crap even if it is better in some regards. Says a lot about 2 as a film actually: that no one cares enough about it to ever bring it up.

Ghostbusters 2 was a typical 80ishs sequel where it was an incremental plot development (think Look Who's Talking 1 and 2) that nonetheless was a plot repeat. The major issue was that the tone is a limp, paint by numbers feeling and the main cast (cept Hudson) clearly doesn't want to be in the film (and they didn't, they wanting GB to be a one off and were pushed into a sequel.).

The major difference was that it tried to do the same things differently and kinda succeeded. Vigo is a looming, god-like antagonist trying to break into reality but stands on his own in not being a repeat, the ooze is a new addition to expand upon the paranormal science angle that was taken up by establishing the setting in the last, and we get the walking Statue of Liberty helping out instead of the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man as a threat.

I think the big difference is Vigo. Something about him was distinct enough that he remained in pop culture and is put into memes. I'd argue that his internet presence is larger than Gozer. There is simply something iconic about him and how he spends most of the film posing frozen in a painting like he was.

If anything, it's a shame he and these other points were put into such a poor sequel.

Definitely. Ghostbusters 2 just goes in the same trend as sequels. I personally don't think it's crap either.

I compare it to like Robocop and Robocop 2.

That's a perfect comparison.

I actually enjoyed both sequels more as a kid even if I know they're worse than the firsts.

[McAvoy]

Y'know... with all of the critique of 2016, no one ever seems to mention Ghostbusters 2 which was definitely on a level of crap even if it is better in some regards. Says a lot about 2 as a film actually: that no one cares enough about it to ever bring it up.

Ghostbusters 2 was a typical 80ishs sequel where it was an incremental plot development (think Look Who's Talking 1 and 2) that nonetheless was a plot repeat. The major issue was that the tone is a limp, paint by numbers feeling and the main cast (cept Hudson) clearly doesn't want to be in the film (and they didn't, they wanting GB to be a one off and were pushed into a sequel.).

The major difference was that it tried to do the same things differently and kinda succeeded. Vigo is a looming, god-like antagonist trying to break into reality but stands on his own in not being a repeat, the ooze is a new addition to expand upon the paranormal science angle that was taken up by establishing the setting in the last, and we get the walking Statue of Liberty helping out instead of the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man as a threat.

I think the big difference is Vigo. Something about him was distinct enough that he remained in pop culture and is put into memes. I'd argue that his internet presence is larger than Gozer. There is simply something iconic about him and how he spends most of the film posing frozen in a painting like he was.

If anything, it's a shame he and these other points were put into such a poor sequel.

Definitely. Ghostbusters 2 just goes in the same trend as sequels. I personally don't think it's crap either.

I compare it to like Robocop and Robocop 2.

That's a perfect comparison.

I actually enjoyed both sequels more as a kid even if I know they're worse than the firsts.

I still enjoy both sequels. They have their flaws and definitely missing the charm of the first movie. But they were definitely not steaming piles of garbage.

... And they both got 21st century reboots.

[Frustration]

They were spot on (Except Mike thinking the first movie critiqued capitalism, it was made to praise Libertarianism, Ivan Reitman even said so).

Libertarianism IS a critique of Capitalism.