Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I’d forgotten the Twinky analogy.

Oh dear! Time to watch it again. And Ghostbusters 2. And The Real Ghostbusters* and Ghostbusters Answer The Call (yes, I find that film enjoyable, other opinions are available etc)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or not. As there’s only Ghostbusters 2 on Netflix.

Knickers.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’d forgotten the Twinky analogy.

Oh dear! Time to watch it again. And Ghostbusters 2. And The Real Ghostbusters* and Ghostbusters Answer The Call (yes, I find that film enjoyable, other opinions are available etc)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or not. As there’s only Ghostbusters 2 on Netflix.

Knickers.

Do you have a local equivalent to Walmart? Here, you could buy a DVD with Ghostbusters 1 and 2 for about $5.

I wonder if they might take some elements from the video game that was partly written by Dan Ackroyd and Harold Ramis. Going by my fuzzy memory, the game explained the Shandor's Gozer cult had constructed focus points for PK-energy under the city that was used to power Gozer's return. I think these were also what created the rivers of slime that Vigo made use of. So, it could easily be explained that nothing happened between GB1 and GB2 because the Gozer-gate was destroyed and so there was nothing to use the PKE. Vigo arrives five years later, and uses that power for his return. A quick explanation in the movie might be that after GB2, the Ghostbusters discovered the actual source of the rivers of slime, that they were created by Shandor's cult originally, and Egon discovers that a Shandor Mining Company did some excavations out in wherever the new movie takes place and decided to move out there to investigate. But Egon dies before he can find much. Just kind of thinking out loud here.

I mean, when you think about what a huge endeavor it must have been to design and build the apartment building that housed the gate, you might start to wonder if Shandor must have tested it out on a smaller scale first to see if it would work.

 Alpharius wrote:
Defo?

Doggo?

DAFUQ?!?

Anyway, yeah, kid protagonists here might not work our well.

Still, we’ll see!

Yeah after seeing that 'Good Boys' movie I find movies starring kids in the lead role end pretty terribly. It's kinda like in the 90's or so when they baby-ified or kid-ified any show that existed (muppet babies, tiny toons and more). Admittedly tiny toons was nice enough (as far as I remember) but movies starring kids does set off some alarm bells for me.

A couple of things....

The movie is a sequel to the originals. The kids are interrelated, and word on the street is that the original cast are all going to make an appearance. SLIMER was in the ghost trap, then they inadvertently let him out, and he runs down the street doing Slimer in the town. That's where they got the car, made the crack about the gunner seat ( sans the original toy from the cartoon) the little girl is Egons granddaughter, The Stanger Things kid is one of the other ones, (I think Ray's) There is another one, yet to be shown, as well. They're going to team up with Ray and Veinkman, and Paul Rudd,( who I think is Oscar), Dana Barret's baby from the second movie.


BTW- THIS is the long lost sequel that they were going to cut before Murry got his big head caught in the door and ended up losing a few more of his brain cells in the late 80's. They were talking about this Pre-internet, and the cast could never get their schedules linked up to this movie, because they didn't have a solid script, and the funding left when they started having second thoughts with the snit with Murray, and his ego. IIRC- veinkman is supposed to be in the movie as a ghost, (but don't quote me just yet. I'm going off of a few years memory of a drunken haze.)

https://ghostbusters.fandom.com/wiki/Ghostbusters_III

THIS was the second one that Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis was trying to get greenlit for the longest time-

https://ghostbusters.fandom.com/wiki/Ghostbusters_III:_Hellbent ( You know what's bad? Ramis was talking about this one almost in the bag right before his death.)



As to all of the B amd M about "rewarding" fanbois… So what. Its a ghostbusters movie. Reitman and Son want's to get PAID!

This movie is not going to be that trailer trash feminist crap that they still try to shill was any good. Bottom line up front- It was a crap movie. They made it just to throw shade, nothing more. Paul Feig was not supposed to do it, because there was already a ghostbusters movie going on and in the works. Because of his success with Bridesmaids, Paul Feig thought he could do no wrong and did it anyway. That's why Sony pretty much threw Feig to the wolves and left him out there to parade this polished turd on his own.

My observation was that it is like they rubbed our face in it in Stranger Things 2, when the kids were all in the Ghostbusters Halloween costumes. Its like they were rubbing our faces in it, and we didn't even realize it.

Happy to see another go at it, but I was perfectly fine with the video game as the 3rd movie.

Take my info with Salt. I neither confirm or deny any of the information that was already common knowledge since 1992-93.

It at least looks better than that first look we got awhile back, but then again it still looks like it could be god awful with copy pasta kid characters who are completely generic and unremarkable in a completely generic and unremarkable film.

But then again that sounds a lot like a Ghostbusters movie to me so...

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Anybody else notice the "Shandor Mining Company" sign at one point? I wonder if what's under the town is Shandor's prototype/backup for what he built in New York.
Anyway, the more I watch this trailer and think about it, the more I think that just about everything we're seeing is just from the first half of the movie, and that there is a whole lot more to come.

Am I the only person who's always been annoyed that they spell it "Shandor" rather than "Sandor", and use it as a surname rather a given name?

I mean, they pronounced Janos correctly in the sequel.

Edit:

That "Manhellton" concept Ramis was talking about using sounds really, really similar to the Marvel comics "Inferno" event, particularly the stuff happening away from the X-books where it was just "what if NYC turned into a version of Hell, and no one seemed to think it was particularly odd". Not to imply it's stolen. It's just a weirdly similar idea. I guess a lot of New Yorkers were thinking "this place is hell" at the time.

It’s almost as bad as how Homer Simpson and Richard Nixon spell and pronounce their names differently.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It’s almost as bad as how Homer Simpson and Richard Nixon spell and pronounce their names differently.

I love that Simpson's joke. But it's pronounced the same. They clearly knew or heard of some Hungarian guy called "something Sandor", thought it was a cool name with a spooky Eastern European Dracula vibe to it, but didn't know how to spell it, and didn't know anything about Hungarian naming conventions.

P.S.

I've never understood the bad reputation Ghostbusters 2 has. I love that movie. I think it was also either the first or second movie I ever saw in theatres (the other contender is The Little Mermaid; both were in '89)?

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It’s almost as bad as how Homer Simpson and Richard Nixon spell and pronounce their names differently.

I love that Simpson's joke. But it's pronounced the same. They clearly knew or heard of some Hungarian guy called "something Sandor", thought it was a cool name with a spooky Eastern European Dracula vibe to it, but didn't know how to spell it, and didn't know anything about Hungarian naming conventions.

P.S.

I've never understood the bad reputation Ghostbusters 2 has. I love that movie. I think it was also either the first or second movie I ever saw in theatres (the other contender is The Little Mermaid; both were in '89)?

I agree; I think some people take issue with the plot contrivance to effectively reset the whole setting to zero, so that they have to start from nothing again (including a lot of people still not believing ghosts are real.)

I enjoy Ghostbusters 2 quite a bit, but it does have some big weaknesses:

1. It’s a sequel that pretends the first movie had no consequences, the “reset” Jadenim mentioned.

2. Other than Vigo, the train, and maybe the tall ghost briefly seen attacking the Columbus arch, none of the ghosts in 2 are scary. In the first movie, all the ghosts except for Slimer were fairly scary. In the second movie, we start with the Scaleri (sp?) Brothers and get more cartoony and less threatening from there.

3. There were fewer scenes where the ghostbusters dynamic got to shine. The prison scene in the first movie is memorable; the psychiatrist scene in 2 is not.

That said, there are a lot of great character actors in 2 who get to shine. The heart and the humor is mostly there, and the music is as good as the first movie’s.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


2. Other than Vigo, the train, and maybe the tall ghost briefly seen attacking the Columbus arch, none of the ghosts in 2 are scary. In the first movie, all the ghosts except for Slimer were fairly scary. In the second movie, we start with the Scaleri (sp?) Brothers and get more cartoony and less threatening from there.

I dunno about this one… the slime-animated bathtub, and Janos' flying-bicycle-nanny apparition, scared the absolute crap out of me as a kid.

I’ll grant Janos, although that’s more the actor’s skill than the design or costume of his apparition. The bathtub slime was...okay? It was no terror dog.

Perhaps I should have used the word “awesome” instead of “scary”. The designs in the first movie were better in terms of inspiring a love of monsters. Janos just inspired a love of Peter MacNichol.