I ain't afraid of no ghost week.

[Mabus]

Maybe it's Casper
I mean, according to the Reitman, Casper is part of the Ghostbusters universe (Aykroyd makes a cameo in the film wearing the ghostbusters suit).

[Scififan]

I never really got the hate that Ghostbusters 2 got. It wasn't as good as the first one but I still enjoyed. Hell, I didn't really hate the new Ghostbusters, there are some things I liked about it.

[CrypticMirror]

I never really got the hate that Ghostbusters 2 got. It wasn't as good as the first one but I still enjoyed. Hell, I didn't really hate the new Ghostbusters, there are some things I liked about it.

Same. I found Ghostbusters 2 to be fun and engaging, and I do not understand why people do not like it equally as much as the first movie. The 2016 version, I'm sick of hearing people complain about it [and the way they all complain in the same way, and with the type of complaints that started as soon as the casting was announced and never changed tone or content thereof], but the movie itself is.... well it is okay. It is the sort of unobjectionable movie that you could watch quite easily on a wet Sunday afternoon. It is fine, it is not great art nor overly taxing on the attention span or brainpower, but it is fine. If it comes on the television while I am channel hopping then I'd probably stop skipping and watch it. It may not be particularly praiseworthy, but it isn't noticeable heinous either.

I am looking forward to the upcoming Paul Rudd Ghostbusters sequel, whenever it comes out after the world gets a handle on the Covid thing. The preview material from before things all went to blazes all looked good. Had a sort of Stranger Things meets MCU vibe to it.

[Rocketboy1313]

I so much like the concept of "funny people fight ghosts" that I like all the Ghostbusters movies.
I like the original cartoon, and I own the complete $180 super collector's box set with huge amounts of.
I own many of the comics from the UK run and recent times.

I am legitimately pissed that I can't find a DVD collection of Filmation's Ghostbusters or the 90's cartoon reboot Extreme Ghostbusters (which is the MOST underrated cartoon of the 90's).

When people say, "the original was lightning in a bottle stop making more" I legitimately want them to shut the fuck up and die. They can just go away. Comedians fight ghosts is a great premise and Ghostbusters has the best props, sound effects, and rules for how it all fits together, there is no reason not to keep making the material and periodically rebooting it with a fresh cast and a fresh take.

You don't have to like all of them, but let me enjoy it.

[Scififan]

Things I liked about the 2016 GB was the villain Rowan North. He was like a distorted look at the Ghostbusters themselves. He was a marginalized person treated badly, at least in his perception, by society and was striking back at the world which the GBs could have ended up as well. It was even mentioned in fact that his technology looked very similar to theirs. I also liked how the new Ghost-busters were more original and not just carbon copies of the original four.

My problems with it really was the Kevin Beckman character who was just too stupid to live and was badly written. The other problem was that the teasers kind of lied about the movie. The first teaser mentions how four scientists saved New York so I had the idea that this was going to be a kind of passing of the torch kind of thing and instead they just rebooted the entire franchise. I would have loved to see what Ray, Egon, Peter and Winston had been up to all these years but it was not meant to be.

Still, all in all I liked the movie and have already seen it a couple of times.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Ghostbusters II is literally the X-Men Apocalypse of the Ghostbusters franchise. While it has a few good and funny moments (like the courtroom scene), most of the film is shallow, full of dumb jokes, and feel like a cheap imitation of the original.

Really? I know the reboot is contentious, but I've genuinely enjoyed the second film a bit more than the first. Even at it's harshest I can't call it a pale comparison.

[sayla0079]

Ghost is in the title.

Just a thought since vampires are associated with Halloween and he hasn't done much from the 11th doctor's run or the last year of the 4th doctor.

[Mabus]

Ghostbusters II is literally the X-Men Apocalypse of the Ghostbusters franchise. While it has a few good and funny moments (like the courtroom scene), most of the film is shallow, full of dumb jokes, and feel like a cheap imitation of the original.

Really? I know the reboot is contentious, but I've genuinely enjoyed the second film a bit more than the first. Even at it's harshest I can't call it a pale comparison.

I too like the second film, but after I rewatched it a couple of times, I noticed that it comes across like a collage of jokes, there is little build-up until the end, it's just not as smooth as the first film. And why did Vigo had to have Dana's baby? Couldn't he have had Janosz steal a baby from an orphanage, that way no one would have learnt about his plan? Who made that slime? How come it could have moved towards Vigo's building? At least the building in the first film was build specifically to summon Gozer. This one is just a museum, and Vigo's painting was the only paranormal thing in it.
Also, the film starts with the characters in almost the same position as in the first film, they even conveniently forgot about the paranormal (apparently Peck, after seeing a 100 ft marshmallow man walking in New York was now totally convinced that it was all a huge prank), it's like they decided to remake the first film, only without the passion the first one had.

[Thebestoftherest]

Ghostbusters II is literally the X-Men Apocalypse of the Ghostbusters franchise. While it has a few good and funny moments (like the courtroom scene), most of the film is shallow, full of dumb jokes, and feel like a cheap imitation of the original.

Really? I know the reboot is contentious, but I've genuinely enjoyed the second film a bit more than the first. Even at it's harshest I can't call it a pale comparison.

I too like the second film, but after I rewatched it a couple of times, I noticed that it comes across like a collage of jokes, there is little build-up until the end, it's just not as smooth as the first film. And why did Vigo had to have Dana's baby? Couldn't he have had Janosz steal a baby from an orphanage, that way no one would have learnt about his plan? Who made that slime? How come it could have moved towards Vigo's building? At least the building in the first film was build specifically to summon Gozer. This one is just a museum, and Vigo's painting was the only paranormal thing in it.
Also, the film starts with the characters in almost the same position as in the first film, they even conveniently forgot about the paranormal (apparently Peck, after seeing a 100 ft marshmallow man walking in New York was now totally convinced that it was all a huge prank), it's like they decided to remake the first film, only without the passion the first one had.

For some reason anything about ghostbusters after the first film keep going back to the no one else believe in ghost route which is so boring. Wouldn't it be more interesting to see how the world would be if believing in ghosts was the norm? How would that go would there be more mediums, would there be courses in the occult combine with magic, would there be DIY projects for ghost repellent no we get ghosts can't be real even after all the evidence to prove they are.

[Thebestoftherest]

Today me birthday.