Ghostbusters: One time, I turned into a dog and they helped me

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Ghostbusters: One time, I turned into a dog and they helped me

«‹›2 »

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Ehud posted:

Ghostbusters is one of my favorite movies and I especially love the scene where Ray and Winston talk about Judgment Day in the car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK6hI423gcw

I always wondered what other conversations the guys had when they were driving around in between jobs.

gently caress yeah, dude. I was going to post this. It's an awesome scene, and really illustrates what makes Ghostbusters special: it's a loving gonzo movie with demon dogs and giant marshmallow sailors, but the characters in-universe still react to everything with legitimate respect and fear. Like even smartass Venkman gets the poo poo scared out of him when Slimer charges down the hall. Ghostbusters, while also being one of the best comedies of all time, is a movie with stakes. The Ray/Winston Judgement Day scene is an example of setting those stakes up, so that when it comes time for them to make the hero play and cross the streams at the end, there is an emotional heft to it.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2018 05:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 23:16

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Timby posted:

Aykroyd was the most willing of the principals to make a sequel, but that's because he's bugnuts crazy. It wasn't until Columbia left dump trucks full of money on the doors of Murray, Ramis, Aykroyd and Reitman that everyone finally sighed and said, "Okay, Danny, what have you got for ideas?" (That's also why they banded together with Michael Ovitz, who had the infamous "no further Ghostbusters movie can be made unless all of us sign off on it" clause written into their GB2 deals.)

Ever since then, he's been trying to get his god-loving-awful Hellbent script made.

But Blues Brothers 2000 and motherfucking Year One should have been enough to disabuse anyone of the notion that Aykroyd or Ramis had anything left in the tank.

I don�t know how Akroyd ever came back from Nothing But Trouble, and I love Nothing But Trouble for the gonzo, mean little movie that it is. But that feels like a movie someone makes when they want to be banned from Hollywood forever.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2018 21:32

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Alan_Shore posted:

I guess Feig just isn't funny (he is AWFUL whenever he showed up on Joel McHale's Netflix show). He just put up a camera and told the actors to adlib. Occasionally that work, like Hemsworth's interview. But it's usually loving atrocious, like the Dean flipping the bird for 10 minutes.

They must have had little confidence in the script. There's no craft or care like in the original. Look at this thread for all the info on the wonderful score and sets.

The film had a bad director. That's the crux of it

Ghostbusters doesn't work with lovely improv. I think that's the heart of the issue. Like the first movie might have been written by three dudes turbo-stoned in a cabin, but it was written with a coherent plot and threaded jokes. The reason why that first movie is so quotable is because most of the dialogue and punchlines were crafted, and what ad-libbing there was was focused around the center idea of the punchlines. The modern Apatow method of sitting a camera down and waiting for something good enough to be babbled out doesn't really work in a more plot-driven narrative, especially with very arch character types. A couple of dudes sitting on their couch smoking weed? That's fine. Improving exists in that bubble. A sci-fi comedy with extradimensional portals and ghost fighting space-age technology? You need to keep the wheels on the road.

# ¿ Aug 2, 2018 18:41

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

The_Doctor posted:

Name of Ray�s sex tape.

Cabin In The Woods.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2018 22:15

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

GB2016 is also a comedy movie that doesn�t really have very many constructed jokes. It�s so improv heavy that there isn�t much in the way of a focused punchline, but rather an unending assault of almost-punchlines. It�s the practice of �one of these has to work, right?� And it doesn�t.

Like my single favorite gag in the original Ghostbusters is when they power on the proton packs in the elevator for the first time. You have the set-up of Ray�s �thermonuclear reactor strapped to our backs� dialogue, and the pay-off is dual layered; Egon and Peter crowding to the back corner, and Ray remaining blissfully ignorant of them doing so. It�s awesome because it�s a character focused bit: Egon is a mad scientist and Peter is a cynic. They actually believe it might blow up. Meanwhile, Ray is the naive believer.

Good comedy is character work expressed through jokes.

Bad comedy is a series of jokes trying to give the impression of an actual character.

# ¿ Aug 7, 2018 18:15

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

God drat, I just remembered the incredibly unfunny wonton soup running gag.

GB2016 is like a junkyard full of roaming stray jokes.

# ¿ Aug 7, 2018 18:55

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

To me, you can tell all you need to about each film by comparing and contrasting the openings of both. GB2016 is this long drawn out scene of bad improv and pratfalls while the movie trips over itself at the starting line to yell SEE?!!? IT�S A COMEDY. GET IT?

GB�84 at least has the confidence to let itself be spooky and atmospheric, things that the reboot not only lacks, but seems utterly uninterested in attempting - despite it being a necessary core component of the franchise�s DNA.

# ¿ Aug 7, 2018 19:18

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

The tone of GB2016 honestly makes more sense if you view it as a live action reboot of The Real Ghostbusters, rather than the 1984 film. If carries about the same stakes and consequences as a Saturday morning cartoon, while eschewing nearly any real horror elements.

But the again TRGB had The Bogeyman, which was a lot more impactful than anything in GB2016, so it even fails at that.

# ¿ Aug 7, 2018 19:27

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

The only good joke in GB2016 is Hemsworth�s saxophone headshots, and that�s because it had to be set up and staged.

# ¿ Aug 7, 2018 19:47

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

You know what really sucks about GB2016? The ghosts are loving boring. All of them lose the original movies' design aesthetics where the spirits of bad people become deformed and corrupted to reflect their negative personalities. Like if you were a metaphorical monster in life, you spend the rest of eternity as a literal monster haunting the living. Check out the ghosts from the intros of both GB'84 and GB2016:

The OG Ghostbusters ghost is loving terrifying. It's distinctly human, but stretched and bloated in all the wrong ways. The ghost in GB2016 just looks like someone wearing latex halloween makeup.

Or check out the Scoleri Brothers:

Like what the gently caress are those things?

Oh, but GB2016 has a dragon.

Okay.

# ¿ Aug 8, 2018 05:25

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Yeah, that was a powerful read. Thanks for sharing it.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2018 04:50

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Well also when you have a movie that is just improv you gently caress up the narrative momentum. OG Ghostbusters has improv, but it never comes at the expense of exposition or moving the plot along. GB2016�s improv just dropped the movie stone cold dead because you never get just one good joke and move on, you get five unfunny jokes that last ten minutes. It completely cuts out the legs from under the movie and makes it really hard to get invested in what is happening. If the characters who are living in the world being portrayed don�t take poo poo seriously, why should we as the audience?

# ¿ Dec 10, 2018 22:17

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

I appreciate Ghostbusters 2 for how fuckin weird it is, even compared to the first film. It�s very pure-strain Akroyd, like Nothing But Trouble.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2018 17:42

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Winston does get one of the funniest scenes in GB2 when they�re playing with the echo in the train tunnel.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2018 18:14

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

The_Doctor posted:

It�s a shame GB2 gets almost dumped to the wayside, when I�d be more than interested to see some behind the scenes info about it. I can imagine even Danny would be willing to do a commentary on it.

The cut stuff from GB2 just sounds so utterly bizarre, it almost seems like a completely different movie was built from the pieces. I�d really love to see how the full possession subplot was supposed to unfold.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2018 16:23

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

I always though that a cool thread to follow for a side-sequel would be Tobin's Spirit Guide. Make it about Tobin's kids or grandkids, who are maybe estranged or something, and reunite to finish their father's work, and in the process stumble across some kind of ancient Lovecraftian horror.

# ¿ Jan 16, 2019 05:30

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Snowglobe of Doom posted:

We already have a template for the "Guide book within the cinematic universe gets spun off into it's own movies" idea with the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them movies and uhhhh I'd prefer they didn't do that with Ghostbusters.

Well for starters I wouldn't commit a five picture franchise to it.

I think the best best for a Ghostbusters sequel (if indeed there must be one) is kind of spreading the scope a little bit, though. If you try to recapture the structure of the original movie, you're going to keep failing.

# ¿ Jan 16, 2019 05:48

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

I think a fundamental building block of a �good� ghostbusters movie is having a legit, true-believer lunatic like Akroyd involved at a script or directing level. One of the things I love about the first film in particular is, although it uses the supernatural for gags, there is always an undercurrent of legitimacy applied to it: the librarian becoming an eldritch horror, Venkman screaming as Slimer rushes him, Stay-Puft�s face changing in anger. Nothing is really treated flippantly. The gag with that dragon thing perched on Leslie Jones� shoulders? That�s not the tone. You need someone at a foundational level that believes in the supernatural to give it that kind of weird nod to horror that is in the first two films.

# ¿ Jan 16, 2019 19:50

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

The only thing that makes GB2 �bad� is that the first movie exists to compare it to.

# ¿ Jan 16, 2019 22:14

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

I legit believe trying to repeat the beats of the first movie is a death sentence. There is still life in the franchise, but they need to do something new with. Setting it in a small rural town is a good start. It immediately offers new environments and tropes to play with.

# ¿ Jan 16, 2019 22:22

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Malcolm Excellent posted:

That doesn't sound very extreme

what if I told you one of the kids is in a wheelchair

# ¿ Jan 18, 2019 17:19

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Bacon Terrorist posted:

Those kids can't drive the Ecto One

No

But Slimer can.

Ugh.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2019 21:01

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Cockmaster posted:

In and of itself, no.

Playing the diversity card instead of focusing on making a quality movie, on the other hand...

wait, do you legit believe that they hedged all of their bets on having an all-woman team?

# ¿ Jan 21, 2019 03:52

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

The_Doctor posted:

GB2 is marginally scarier than GB1.

It�s arguably the weirder of the two, which gives it some merit, just because you get stuff like Peter MacNichol dressing up like a ghost witch, or the entirety of the Scoleri Bros. sequence.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2019 16:12

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Slutitution posted:

She's an overgrown child who's still bitter about her lovely Ghostbusters film sucking harder than a trailer trash hoe.

This is a cool, normal brain post.

Anyway,

I wonder what the sequel prospects were when GB2016 was in production. The movie ends with a halfassed stinger, but given how taped-together the script was, I wonder if there was even a genuinely sketched out plan for where to go next.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2019 02:05

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

lol well thank god you�re fighting the good fight for us

# ¿ Jan 22, 2019 02:34

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

When did I cape for them, Chief? Don�t be so sensitive. This is the Cliff Yablonski site.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2019 02:48

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Vintersorg posted:

I have no dog in this fight but

Then who the gently caress cares. Slutitution and I are having a discussion.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2019 09:14

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Vintersorg posted:

You killed it by going COMEDY SITE moron.

Thank u 4 your service Forums Cop, it is both necessary and constructive.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2019 15:31

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Mel Mudkiper posted:

Ghostbusters as a franchise fascinates me because people are diehard about it even though the entire franchise has only ever produced one good thing, the original movie

Like, the entire legacy of the series is one good movie and a bunch of stuff never as good as that movie

I think, for me, what makes it kind of an invested franchise is that the potential for further exploration in it is so deep. It�s kind of such an inherently broad and elastic concept that you could mine like, a crazy amount of stories from it. It has a really strong setting, both in concept and tone.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2019 15:39

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Mel Mudkiper posted:

See, I get that, but in that case I feel like a lot of the aggression towards the remake is misplaced

I do agree with that. I don�t think GB2016 is necessarily any worse than the lesser elements that already exist in the franchise, it�s just frustrating on a technical level with its improve-heavy construction.

I almost wonder how different the perception of Ghostbusters as a brand would be if GB2 never existed. Like keep the cartoons and comics and whatnot, but take away any direct film sequel. Would the fan base still be as fervent, without the inherent suggestion of further installments? I honestly don�t know.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2019 15:58

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Yeah I don�t think it�s realistic to say that the success of the first film wasn�t owed entirely to a rare alignment of talent both in front of and behind the camera. Not just the actors, but the special effects team, production design, score. There�s not really a weak link in the chain.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2019 16:49

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

I actually kind of dig the black light carnival haunted house design of the ghosts in GB2016. I mean it�s not nearly as charming as the puppet work done in the first two films, but it was one of the few cases where the movie sketched out its own identity.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2019 01:01

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Mel Mudkiper posted:

I genuinely thought they looked really impressive and I was shocked to find people weren't fans

To be clear, I like the aesthetics. I think the designs were... good to just okay. That dragon thing sucked rear end. It felt like it was from a completely different movie. I liked the parade float ghosts quite a bit. That was really fun.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2019 01:11

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

DoctorGonzo posted:

they were cgi piece of shits
ghosts arent supposed to be charming

Slimer is charming. He had his own Hi-C flavor.

Have you?

# ¿ Jan 23, 2019 14:51

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

deoju posted:

I was just thinking about their reaction to getting the first call the get in the 84 movie, and their first trip down the pole...

[edit: gently caress, how do you post youtube vids with a time stamp now? Skip ahead to 30 seconds...]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXMcbhn6Np0

Ray is super loving excited, even to the point of being spastic. He springs up and rushes to the pole first, then flails around like a goober on his way to the lockers.

Peter is second. He moves quickly, but isn't really hustling. He reaches the pole just after ray in the first shot, but doesn't follow him down for a little while after. That's because, off screen, it is taking him a couple of seconds out the best way to go do the pole while bringing the dinner and chopsticks with him. Venkman isn't going to let the last of the petty cash get cold.

Egon is tinkering at a spare neutrino wand over dinner, ever the scientist. He rises, comports himself and adjusts his tie, but the last shot shows him terrified while going down.

From eating dinner to rolling out in Ecto 1. There are 3 shots there for a total of 20 seconds or so, but each actor packs a ton into their performance.

I think this brings up another good point in comparison to GB2016. Other than Holtzmann, none of the ghostbusters are really defined �characters.� They all have the same voice and flip back between comic relief and straight man (so to speak) as the scene requires. OGGB has genuine characters which allows for a lot of small moments of comedy, as in the scene you illustrated.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2019 05:40

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Ghost Leviathan posted:

Venkman having the skillset to distinguish kooks and the mentally ill from people who've had genuine encounters with the paranormal is probably something the Ghostbusters couldn't function without.

This is actually a good point. Venkman is a huckster but real knowns real and that's kind of a main theme in the movie. He does a lot of quipping when he encounters Zuul-possessed Dana, but he still recognizes that what is happening is legit and over his head. But he's still a dick, so he tends to indulge himself less when it comes to less immediate threats like the psychic study.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2019 06:25

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Carrie Coon is fuckin� dope.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2019 07:30

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

"You wouldn't believe the things we saw. Me, Pete, Ray; we saw things they haven't made words for yet."

"What about Dr. Spengler? What about Egon?"

"Ha. Waiting for a postcard, kid."

"You can't be serious?"

"Maybe. Maybe not. All I know is my mailman's name is Earl, he's a Taurus, and if he kick's it I'm in charge of his kid."

# ¿ Mar 8, 2019 05:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 23:16

Tart Kitty: Dec 17, 2016; Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Iron Crowned posted:

the foam beam was the first thing to go for me because of "authenticity" or whatever words my child brain would have used

I extremely identify with this post

# ¿ Oct 21, 2019 01:51

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Ghostbusters: One time, I turned into a dog and they helped me

«‹›2 »