|
I was watching the Ghostbusters 2 deleted scenes on youtube and I got to thinking about this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQt9qDxOjOA&t=404s, where the Mayor's assistant is sucked into the slime, leaving only smoking shoes behind. The effects aren't finished so it's not quite clear what's happened to him, but is the implication here that he's dead, melted by the slime or something? In the finished film you see him singing with the crowd at the end, so he doesn't die in the final film, but I know there's a lot of alternate takes and differences between what was planned and what ended up in the final cut. Case in point; this scene shows Venkman informing the Mayor of the Ghostbusters being institutionalised, which is played as something that's new to the Mayor, whereas in the final film the Mayor learns this earlier and fires his assistant as a result. If so, is the Mayor's assistant the only character to be killed in either two original films? Maybe that's why they changed it? The guy's a dick, but being melted alive seems like an overly harsh punishment, whereas being fired seems to be more fitting for the kind of dick that he is. It also kind of makes Venkman and the other Ghostbusters look like a sociopaths as they seem largely unconcerned and didn't even try to stop him from running straight up to the slime. Though to be fair, they went swimming in it earlier with nothing lethal happening to them, so maybe they thought it would be okay.
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
Timby posted:Hardemeyer was sucked into the slime in the original shoot and while I don't have my February shooting script on me, I don't believe he ever returned. A lot of the stuff outside the museum was very heavily re-shot in March and April 1989, though. Ah, thanks. I'd love to see a tell-all book about the making of these films one day, maybe one that could go into the Ghostbusters 3 project that never got off the ground. I mean Ackroyd would probably write such a book if someone asked him to.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
I reckon those severed heads are the most gruesome on screen horror image in any GB film, but, for my money at least the single most menacing scene is Dana being possessed by the dog. Thinking about both original films it is one of the only scenes where there is no comedic element at all, with the heads the impact is softened due to the GBs reaction to it which is funny, but the chair scene serves solely to frighten.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Absolutely. Also, have you seen the original version of Vigo coming out of the painting? Holy shiiiiit gently caress, that's pretty frightening, that would have certainly poo poo me up as a child.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
Is that a Terror Dog menacing Paul Rudd in his car? Shandor Mining implies Egon bought the house to keep an eye on other Shandor owned things, which is cool.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Any long gap sequel is going to trade on the basis of the audiences fondness for the original, I don't think it's a bad thing if it is executed well. This looks like it can go interesting places in a narrative sense, what does a world look like thirty years down the line where everyone accepts that ghosts are real? How does it affect religion? Are there books, TV documentaries on the subject? Are people less scared of dying now that they know there's something else? That's all fun stuff that the film can play with.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
It's the mixture of the mundane and the supernatural which makes it funny. A demon possessing is spooky, but a demon then trying to interact with New Yorkers with his ancient sumerian frame of reference is funny.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:gently caress wondering if the 2009 Game is canon, is Ghostbusters 2 canon? I mean they made the goddamn Statue of Liberty walk into downtown New York City with some pink slime and a Nintendo Advantage joystick. Rudd says that noone's seen a ghost for thirty years, which lines up with II, but not the game (which takes place in 1990 I think).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
I don't know, I reckon people will miss the cinema, it's a different experience than at home.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
Winston is so underutilised and it's a real shame. The fact that they don't do much with him is one of the few big negative aspects of the original film. There's a really odd deleted scene where Venkman kind of chews him out just as they're about to go into 55 Central Park West; Winston makes a joke about skipping town, and Venkman says that he was gonna offer him a promotion but now he's not sure. It's a great thing they deleted it, as it's just kind of mean and weird and would have put some bad vibes over a scene that is otherwise triumphant and exciting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2020 10:24
|
|
|
SolarFire2 posted:So the original was on TV the other night, as it often is. When I was a kid, the terror dogs were the scariest thing in the world. And I thought Xenomorphs were cool as hell. My parents had cable and weren't very attentive to what I was watching. Same. For whatever reason the dogs terrified me as a child beyond all concept of rational thought - they kind of took the place of the boogeyman in my childhood consciousness where I would associate any dark area or threatening situation with them. And now as an adult, I get that same feeling of nervousness when watching as you do, it's very odd but I think when something scares you at that very early stage it has such a large impact that you can't help remember how you felt as a child. My fear of those dogs had a weirdly specific element though. The copy of Ghostbusters I had as a child was a VHS recorded off UK television and for whatever reason it was heavily cut down, not just for sex references and mild language, but also for things that were considered too frightening. Most close up shots of the dogs had been excised, and in specific the scene where Dana is abducted was quite cleverly cut to remove the hands. This made the scene play out as if Dana is sitting in her chair, and then the chair whips round, the door swings open, and the chair shoots through it. The scene kept all the wide shots but all the close ups of the hands coming out, and one close up of the dog roaring (a wide of the dog sitting up on its haunches as the door opens was still present) were all gone. Still, the scene terrified me. But like all things young Karloff began to get more comfortable with it, and eventually even began to enjoy the film, rather than want to run out the room. That was until I saw a retail VHS copy which of course had the full scene with hands, close-ups and everything and I had a tremendous back slide into being frightened again. It's hard to describe the feeling of it, but I had got so used to being able to stomach the version I had previously seen that suddenly seeing the same scene but with more frightening imagery felt like a weird form of betrayal by the film. Like I had uncovered something demonic within it that made itself meaner and nastier in response to me no longer being afraid of it. Or at least that's how it felt to seven year old me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
I guess dogs technically.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
It does seem like the editing pace is massively sped up for that short clip with the different moments/gags all arriving and collapsing together with no time to breathe. That probably contributes to the feeling of it being an advertisement alongside the cuteness etc, the finished film will probably be paced better. Overall it doesn't dent my excitement too much because there's an inevitability to them leaning on the stuff people recognize in the marketing.
Karloff fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 08:15
|
|
|
I was under the impression in RGB that the film's events still happened. I think there's one episode set straight after where they still have marshmallow on their grey suits which subsequently come to life.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 12:50
|
|
|
It's an acceptable score, there's some good stuff in it, but, like the film itself falls pretty short of the first. II's score feels of its time and broadly super-heroic whereas the score for the first film has a timeless quality, and feels quite iconic and unique with it's jazz/theremin and big biblical menace.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Glad to see that the Terror Dog is still clumsy, miss the red eyes though, it was a big wide shot so maybe it still has them up close.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
There's lots of room to expand with Gozer too, we don't actually learn a lot about them in the original film, if they have a motivation beyond pure destruction, what their relationship to ancient humanity is etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
^They did I think, I think you see her back on place in the end credits.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 01:49
|
|
|
Frustrating discourse on twitter. Two camps; one claiming that the original Ghostbusters isn't a comedy, and the other saying it's a comedy in the vein of Airplane! Both seemingly misunderstanding what that original film is doing. It's a big spectrum of different tones and approaches in comedy within a dramatic framework and that original film finds an excellent place on it, it doesn't need to be a strict binary between serious film and Naked Gun style goof off.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 02:18
|
|
|
Maybe for Rudd as a keymaster. From Jason Reitman's trailer breakdown, he talks about the transitional form of the Terror Dog which is that ghost looking Terror Dog at 01:55 in that shot it looks like it's roaring at Paul Rudd. But it's during the day in comparison to the night shot where we see the solid Dog chasing him, so it looks like it might possess him in that night shot and get exorcised during the day. If he's only briefly possessed, a Gatekeeper might not be necessary.
Karloff fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Jul 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 03:17
|
|
|
Noob Saibot posted:Ghostbusters is as much a “comedy” as Indiana Jones and Star Wars are comedies I think it's moreso than that, as the concept - exorcist as exterminators - is intrinsically funny in itself in a way that Star Wars and Jones isn't. Plus, it's headlined by the big comic actors of the day unlike those two. But, the idea there's no stakes, or threat, or seriousness in lieu of a better term getting bandied about on twitter is false imo. Something like Shaun of the Dead is a good comparison, funny performances, comic sequences, wry humour, but genuine menace and stakes when needed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 05:06
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The cool thing about the courtroom scene is how kinetic it is. It is almost the GBs first real action sequence. The big set-pieces in 1 were much more locked down and restrained - which is not a criticism, it totally works - but they feel like Western stand-offs prioritising tension and moments of silence. The courtroom battle by contrast injects a bit of eighties action cinema with tightly joined progressive action beats, and more camera movement and dynamic editing. It's dope.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
With Sigourney Weaver confirmed to be returning in this, is there a chance of a reunion with Zuul. Presuming it is Zuul and/or Vince in the trailer. Could be cool to see Dana get her own back after being pretty harshly victimised for two films.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
It's got Ray's book store, which is only introduced in GB2. The game will probably be ignored though, mainly because it expands a lot on Shandor/Gozer, even going as far as to say Shandor has subsumed Gozer if I'm remembering correctly. I feel this new film will not want to bend over backwards to be consistent with that in terms of its own expansion of that story.
Karloff fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Aug 1, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
Just from an audience perspective, it would probably make things confusing. Although it was a popular game, the vast majority of people seeing the film won't have played it. I really should get the PS4 remaster though, I remember enjoying it quite a bit. The atmosphere was good, and although getting you to relive all the stuff from the film was a bit contrived, it felt permissible in a video game context. Plus, some of the ways it connected GB1 and 2 were pretty cool if I recall.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
It's Peck's body language as well, his vibe, it is clear he wasn't there for good reasons. Back when I used to work customer service I could always tell before a customer said anything that they were gonna give me a hard time. I reckon it's a bit like that.
Karloff fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Aug 6, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2021 23:37
|
|
|
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 never took crossing streams as something that would kill loads of people, just the user and perhaps those in close vicinity, "all life as YOU know it". Otherwise Ghostbusting is insanely dangerous. There is a lot of fate in Ghostbusters as you say, but on my recent watch it struck me a little different. In a lot of narratives the forces of evil are loud and audacious and the opposite forces of good (be it God, or a turtle) are more quiet, and tend to work through people. It's a stretch but you could read some of the coincidences being an opposite force opposing Gozer and silently guiding events, I think mainly about the TV being on in Dana's apartment despite her turning it off and fortuitously showing a Ghostbusters advert leading her to seek them out. There is not a lot of evidence for it, and it obviously rubs up against interpretations of the film as atheists vs spiritualism, but I thought it was interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Tom Guycot posted:I always thought that was Egon and Peter just trying to get the price down from the real estate agent before Ray comes and blows it all by going off on how great and awesome it is. That was my read too, I do like how you can see the dynamic and connections between the characters in these scenes. Ray and Egon obviously share a fascination with science in a way that Peter doesn't, yet Peter and Egon share a worldliness and business savvy that Ray clearly doesn't have. Their relationships with each other feel very authentic and detailed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
There will be comedy in the film. Jason Reitman pretty much just makes comedic dramas. They're leaning on the legacy stuff in the trailer because it's clearly a big part of the story and it's the director's son so it fits. The marketing is pitched away from the gags I suspect because they're probably spooked (pun intended) by the box office performance of the last film, which leant heavily on gags for its trailer. Though the unprecedented YouTube dislike of that trailer had a lot to do with chuds making multiple profiles to down vote it, moreso than just underwhelming jokes I reckon.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
Although first reactions often lean towards praise, these feel sincere (standard Ben Mekler gags aside), which is exciting to see especially as so much cynicism has been thrown at this one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2021 13:50
|
|
|
The only way I could see a ghost Egon being even slightly permissible would be if it's the invisible move stuff around kind. Any attempt at cging him will be gross. I hate this resurrection of dead actors trend, it really creeps me out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:I don't know that Slimer was really a baddie even in the first one, he was just happy to be eating food in a snooty rich hotel when the ghost cops assaulted him. The librarian ghost had a legitimate complaint. I would be hosed right off if someone tried to tackle me while I was enjoying some poetry at my local library.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
Sick, I love this kind of stuff, seeing the sets and all the minutiae of the process.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
Please to see Afterlife is getting positive responses. I sensed that the knives were out for it a bit, so I was curious to see if that pessimism carried over into the reviews, but it seems it is largely being well received.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2021 10:43
|
|
|
There does seem to be an angry implication in that review, and in the discourse leading up to this film, where Afterlife is rewarding toxic fan culture. Fan culture can be pretty gross and all the entitled whining from adult men about the 2016 film was deeply pathetic (which I still maintain is a fine, if unexceptional film). But I think the idea that this film is ripping Ghostbusters out the hands of young girls and giving it to the gross losers who were militantly* against the idea of the 2016 film might be a little off base? As far as I can see from some of the reviews the MVP of this film is in fact a young girl so it's probably not the film those guys would ideally want. That review does seem to come from a really elitist place, it's always bad form when your review stops criticising the film and starts criticising the prospective audience who may enjoy it. As for the nostalgic elements, I'm curious, it could come off as an inventive examination/expansion of the 84s film's story, or just empty "look at this" pandering. I'm hoping it's the former. *So that's the people furious about the very idea of the film, not just people who didn't like it for the myriad sensible reasons why one would dislike a film.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2021 09:17
|
|
|
That is odd. That implies that the 2016 was another sequel that has been "erased" by this one. But it never was, it was a straight up hard reboot, so I don't how the script of this one could erase the 2016 film because by definition it was never in continuity. I wonder what he's referring to?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2021 10:22
|
|
|
I think (hope) as well that the nostalgic elements will be more thoughtfully applied simply because it is the director's son that's doing it. It implies the resurrection of those elements might come from a more thoughtful, heartfelt place as opposed to a cynical fan bait one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2021 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
Official release of the international trailer https://youtu.be/lnKmAVLC3jU some spoiler stuff I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2021 16:52
|
|