Related Articles

17 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif
Lister Sage said on June 29th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

I did not know that Bill Murry reprised his role for the Ghostbusters game. I just assumed that the commerical I saw for it ripped the audio from the movie. Gives me more of a reason to check it out.

ReplyReply
mygif

It would be so horribly ironic if Schwarzenegger ever got cancer.

ReplyReply
mygif

Wait, I thought a “Poochie” was a character added to a show in a laughably miscalculated, soullessly market-driven attempt to be “cool”.

Or, alternately, a new, would-be-hip character added to a show in an attempt to bring in “fresh blood”, like any one of 3,000 little girls who popped up in the later seasons of The Cosby Show, or, arguably, the Fonz. Though the Fonz is the Citizen Kane of Poochies.

ReplyReply
mygif
Chris Russell said on June 29th, 2009 at 7:54 pm

I will defend Ghostbusters 2 even as my undying soul rots away in an ectoplasmic containment unit of Egon Spengler’s design.

ReplyReply
mygif
DistantFred said on June 30th, 2009 at 6:15 am

Prankster- Yes, that is what I’ve seen Poochie used as far more frequently. At least the first one.

The second is not a Poochie, it’s a Cousin Oliver, so named for the Brady Cousin that they added to the Brady Bunch when Cindy and Bobby stopped being precocious, and Greg and Marcia starting being 20 something.

And the Fonz is not one of either, given that he was added to Happy Days in the first episode, with only an underdeveloped Love, American Style pilot preceding it.

ReplyReply
mygif

ok Chris defend your precious movie.

10 reasons Why Ghostbusters II Sucked:

1. At the beginning of the movie, we actually had to wait for the Ghostbusters team to reunite after breaking up. This nonsense just wastes valuable story time.

2. Ray and Winston were seen singing and dancing to the original Ghostbusters song at the birthday party.

3. The judge and other city officials STILL don’t believe in ghosts and monsters regardless of the fact that a 50ft marshmallow man waddled its fat ass along central park west with tv crews filming it during the last film.

3b. In what cave did these doctors live in during the events of the entire first movie such that they didn’t recognize the Ghostbusters? Hasn’t the whole “completely ignorant psychiatrist” thing been overdone?

4. The rewrites of Louis Tully’s and Janine Melnitz’s characters were ridiculous as was their forced and awkward love affair.

5. The whole objectified good energy vs evil energy plot was childish, horribly cliché and stupid.

6. Oh my god, they put fucking Slimer in the movie!!! The ghost from the first film that the animated series “cutified” to sell toys. How was this at any time considered a good idea?

7. The ghost train was far too comical an event to use after the “growling voice” and the severed heads on pikes. Not to mention, it really devalued Winston’s character.

8. I didn’t mind Sigourney Weaver being in the film, but did she have to be the victim AGAIN? No, I don’t care that it was technically her kid. The baby could only play “cry” and “not cry”; Sigourney Weaver played the victim.

9. Cheech Marin looking out a window with a stupid look on his face (without mentioning drugs) does not constitute a running gag.

9b. Not that it wasn’t a decent effect, but why would the hate filled slime of New York raise the Titanic?

10. With all that slime at his command, and supposedly the ghosts that came with it, Vigo’s choice of minions was really quite pathetic. Why not raise some of the Redcoats or Union soldiers? Why not some native American spirits to fight for him? Vigo’s most menacing fighters were a cross-dressing ghost nanny and a killer bathtub.

ReplyReply
mygif

Obviously I’m not the Chris being addressed, but in response to all of Zenrage’s Ghostbusters II complaints:

It is a comedy.

ReplyReply
mygif
Drmedula said on June 30th, 2009 at 10:16 am

Fonzie is actually the prime example of “supporting character who steals show away from original stars”- like Dr. Smith on LOST IN SPACE or Dan Fielding on NIGHT COURT. It’s a crucial difference; these characters EARNED their prominence by becoming the viewer’s favourites.(You may not like Urkel- but why ELSE would anyone watch FAMILY MATTERS?)

ReplyReply
mygif

Chris S,

So your position is basically any bad storyline idea, random scene, or flat out uninteresting character development can be excused because “It is a Comedy”

So by that logic, any film with Tom Green, Andy Dick., Will Ferrell or Vince Vaughn is as funny or as well written as any Mel Brooks or Marx Brothers movie. Is that what you’re trying to say?

Batman & Robin had comedic elements too. Should we forget about all the horrible shit the movie presented as well and label it as “just a comedy”?

Ghost Busters was an Action comedy targeted at a pre-teen/teenage audience – the heroes smoked, the villains were ugly and violent, and there was plenty of swearing tossed around. The animated series that followed targeted children – the use of slimer, no smoking, no swearing.

In the second movie, however, only one Ghostbuster smoked, very little swearing was used and they used Slimer. They left the roots of the movie behind and started focusing on slime and merchandising rather than a decent coherent storyline.

In any good action/comedy the action sequences are a little light-hearted to make people feel good even when the good guys get attacked. Ghostbusters II had no cohesion between its comedy scenes and its action scenes. Every scene was too much of one and not enough of the other – like the severed heads/ghost train sequence. The end result was a disjointed mess that failed to satisfy the audience.

That and it had a really shitty theme song compared to the original too.

ReplyReply
mygif

My comparison has always been that GHOSTBUSTERS II is like soda you’ve left in the fridge for a while. It still tastes good, it’s sweet and all, but the fizz is gone.

ReplyReply
mygif
Lister Sage said on June 30th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

Zenrage: I don’t think your smoking argument holds water. How do you know that the actors themselves simply didn’t give up smoking inbetween the two films?

ReplyReply
mygif

Actually, my point was that both Ghostbusters movies are primarily a comedies, absolutely absurd and ridiculous ones at that. These movies are are not super duper serious dramas which are supposed to keep us on the edge of our seats from start to finish.

So, I’m sorry if you didn’t like it because it had the Ghostbusters dancing for 15 seconds, if they spent some time playing with some humorous situations for the characters before they jumped back into the saddle, if they used Slimer for two little gag scenes, or if Winston was afraid because he thought he was about to be murdered by a train. I’m sorry that you decided that it should be one kind of movie, and it wound up being a different sort altogether.

ReplyReply
mygif
Drmedula said on June 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm

zenrage, take a look at stuff before you judge it. By your own standards, ANCHORMAN(starring several of the performers you slagged) is a better constructed movie than anything Mel Brooks ever did.

ReplyReply
mygif
Chris Russell said on June 30th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

“Is the atomic weight of cobalt 58.9?” is ample penance for all this movie’s sins.

ReplyReply
mygif

“Once I turned into a dog and they helped me” is also good.

ReplyReply
mygif

“Suck in the guts guys, we’re the Ghostbusters.”

ReplyReply
mygif

DrMedula,

What standard did I set that would in any way suggest that any Will Ferrell comedy would be better than any Mel Brooks film?

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments