# Yet another Ghostbusters movie



## trappedslider (Jan 17, 2019)

[video=youtube;g4lT3LEimWk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4lT3LEimWk[/video]

https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/16/18185309/ghostbusters-sequel-jason-reitman-2020

Sony Pictures has tapped Jason Reitman (the son of Ivan Reitman, who directed the original 1984 film) to direct a sequel set in the world of the original Ghostbusters. It’s planned for a summer 2020 release.

Looks like it will ignore 2016...it was an okay movie IMO, but to me it didn't feel like the cast had the same chemistry as the original cast did.

He tells EW, “This is the next chapter in the original franchise. It is not a reboot. What happened in the ‘80s happened in the ‘80s, and this is set in the present day.” 

and Reitman is looking to cast two male and two female teenagers for the film.

If it's aiming for a 2020 release it's gonna be quickly done....so my hopes are low..low enough that you could step over the bar....


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 17, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> and Reitman is looking to cast two male and two female teenagers for the film..




all they need to do is make one of the male teens a stoner with a pet greart dane


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 17, 2019)

I'm tempted to say that it would be really hard for this to be worse than the recent reboot, but I guess I shouldn't underestimate the incompetence of Sony.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 17, 2019)

The female movie was okay.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 17, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> The female movie was okay.




Agreed.  It wasn't fine art, but then neither was the original.  It was a decent flick, good for a summer afternoon.


----------



## Janx (Jan 17, 2019)

Only a direct descendant can guide this franchise to success, or we shall all be dooooooooomed.

Doooooooomed!


----------



## Morrus (Jan 17, 2019)

While I’m not one of those who insist the original team reform (one’s dead, and have you *seen* how old Bill Murray is now?) I’m also not keen on the teenagers approach.


----------



## cmad1977 (Jan 17, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> The female movie was okay.




But.... but... GIRLS!!!


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Jan 17, 2019)

My desire to see another Ghostbusters movie died along with Harold Remis.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 17, 2019)

This bit of art pretty succinctly illustrates my feelings on that:



I enjoyed the female-led reboot quite a bit. I do think not connecting it to the original two films was a mistake. But completely ignoring it with this new film seems pretty darn tone-deaf in this day and age.



Morrus said:


> While I’m not one of those who insist the original team reform (one’s dead, and have you *seen* how old Bill Murray is now?) I’m also not keen on the teenagers approach.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Blue (Jan 17, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I enjoyed the female-led reboot quite a bit. I do think not connecting it to the original two films was a mistake. But completely ignoring it with this new film seems pretty darn tone-deaf in this day and age.




I enjoyed the 2016 Ghostbusters, but the only character with the same zany pull as the original three ghostbusters was Holtzmann.  (Sorry, I like Zeddemore, but he didn't have the same oomph as the others.)

I didn't come away with feeling it was unrelated, just that it was only loosely related.  There was comments from the federal (?) official that this sort of thing had happened before and had been covered up / amazed what people forgot.  Sort of a nod that the earlier movie(s) happened without having to build on the later movies in the franchise.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 17, 2019)

I thought they all did a good job, but Holtzmann was assuredly the stand-out character of the movie.

Instead of "not connecting it to the original two films," perhaps I should've said “not keeping it in continuity with…” 



Blue said:


> I enjoyed the 2016 Ghostbusters, but the only character with the same zany pull as the original three ghostbusters was Holtzmann.  (Sorry, I like Zeddemore, but he didn't have the same oomph as the others.)
> 
> I didn't come away with feeling it was unrelated, just that it was only loosely related.  There was comments from the federal (?) official that this sort of thing had happened before and had been covered up / amazed what people forgot.  Sort of a nod that the earlier movie(s) happened without having to build on the later movies in the franchise.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 18, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I enjoyed the female-led reboot quite a bit. I do think not connecting it to the original two films was a mistake. But completely ignoring it with this new film seems pretty darn tone-deaf in this day and age.



Aren't constant reboots all the rage these days?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 18, 2019)

Jhaelen said:


> Aren't constant reboots all the rage these days?




"These days"? People have been remaking stuff since movies began - they just didn't call them reboots.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 18, 2019)

In terms of both sound and visuals the teaser definitely makes it clear that yes, this is your daddy's Ghostbusters. Which could be good, or could just wind up being an attempt to rehash the original movie wholesale.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 18, 2019)

So it would seem. It seems like the reboot cycle is getting faster and faster. Still grumpy about what DC did with Constantine/Hellblazer.



Jhaelen said:


> Aren't constant reboots all the rage these days?


----------



## Morrus (Jan 18, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> So it would seem. It seems like the reboot cycle is getting faster and faster. Still grumpy about what DC did with Constantine/Hellblazer.




You don’t have to watch them. It’s not like Hollywood doesn’t churn out hundreds of original films every year too.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 18, 2019)

No, true, I do not (Nor do I have to post complaining about it, but here we stand). And honestly, there have been some remakes I've enjoyed. But then something like the Your Name remake gets announced, and it makes me grumpy all over again.



Morrus said:


> You don’t have to watch them. It’s not like Hollywood doesn’t churn out hundreds of original films every year too.


----------



## Eltab (Jan 18, 2019)

Proposed tie-in:  One of the teens is summoned to a lawyer's office because of something about a will.  They have inherited a big suitcase: a Ghostbuster proton pack, with instructions (yes, Ramis' character's stuff).  The strange things begin to happen when the teen takes it back to his/her apartment, in a high-rise which is being renovated.  The structure of the building has a certain amount of the alloy that made the original building into Spook Central and drew Gozer's attention.  Ghosts start showing up, "leaking out of the walls".  The teen has to read the instructions while looking for friends to help out with a 'defumigation' of the place.  Some original stars could put in cameos; Sigourney Weaver could provide actually-helpful information, such as a lead on where the ambulance (plus more gear stored inside it) was parked.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 19, 2019)

I would definitely like to see a new Ghostbusters movie if it does world building, like the original two movies did. This is one of the things I loved about the Ghostbusters game for PS3; it expanded on the mythology.

Also, it helps if they write actual jokes, and don't just put a bunch of comedians in a room and keep the camera rolling, hoping something funny will occur.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 19, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> I would definitely like to see a new Ghostbusters movie if it does world building, like the original two movies did. This is one of the things I loved about the Ghostbusters game for PS3; it expanded on the mythology.
> 
> Also, it helps if they write actual jokes, and don't just put a bunch of comedians in a room and keep the camera rolling, hoping something funny will occur.




That’s how they made a lot of the first film.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 19, 2019)

Morrus said:


> That’s how they made a lot of the first film.




I disagree. Sure, there's some improv, but there's definitely a competent script with a lot of deliberately written jokes there.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 19, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> Also, it helps if they write actual jokes, and don't just put a bunch of comedians in a room and keep the camera rolling, hoping something funny will occur.




I had the opposite feeling from the 2016 movie - that it was a whole bunch of scripted jokes strung together, with a cast were competent comedians, but couldn't actually deliver a natural-feeling acting performance.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 19, 2019)

Actually, I checked the original (final version) script of Ghostbusters, and yeah, it is pretty tightly scripted.

You can see how they probably did several takes of some of the scenes, and improvised some of the dialogue while staying more or less on script, and then kept the best takes... but it is a pretty detailed script never the less, and they barely deviate from it. Some extra/changed lines here and there, but pretty much what is in the film word by word. Then of course after editing some dialogues were clearly shortened, but most importantly, the jokes are all in there.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 19, 2019)

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> My desire to see another Ghostbusters movie died along with Harold Remis.




As I posted on the Nedist video comments there will be no new Ghostbusters movie, as long as Harlold Ramis remains dead.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 19, 2019)

Ryujin said:


> As I posted on the Nedist video comments there will be no new Ghostbusters movie, as long as Harlold Ramis remains dead.




Well, I’ll watch it. You won’t. That’s fine.


----------



## calronmoonflower (Jan 20, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> The female movie was okay.




If the original never existed it wouldn't have been hated as much. I found if fairly ok, but I think the syfy channel with its cheap movies style could have done better with the same cast and general script.

As for the new sequel I'm a bit concerned that once again a bad director has been hired for the willingness to go alone with the flow. But as he is the son of the original director, whom is now the producer of the new movie, it might work out better than the 16 reboot.

And while I'm here I made a meme for the new movie...


via Imgflip Meme Generator


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 20, 2019)

I was hoping that this would have the original cast, the living ones at any rate, but I'm thinking that won't be the case. It might end up like the 2016 reboot. Something I'll add to my watch list and maybe watch when I can't think of anything else to watch. Growing up with the original ghost busters, those are the ones I want to see in a new movie. Not just as cameos but as the main characters.


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 20, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> I was hoping that this would have the original cast, the living ones at any rate, but I'm thinking that won't be the case. It might end up like the 2016 reboot. Something I'll add to my watch list and maybe watch when I can't think of anything else to watch. Growing up with the original ghost busters, those are the ones I want to see in a new movie. Not just as cameos but as the main characters.




its being reported that Ernie Hudson has confirmed he and co-stars Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray will return for third film, primarily because of the involvement of Ivan Reitman and also that Dan Aykroyd is the 'driving force' behind the script.

SO while that bodes much much better than a "teenage sequel*" I'm not sure I'd want to see a group of old Ghostbusters (they're all hitting 70 now) as main characters - though a passing the torch sequence (maybe even one that honours Egons death) could work, so longer than a cameo but still supporting characters to the main new cast.

* whats the correct term for these sequel/reboot things anyway?


----------



## Eltab (Jan 20, 2019)

Tonguez said:


> though a passing the torch sequence (maybe even one that honours Egons death) could work



When the actor who played Q in the 007 movies passed away, I thought it would have been appropriate for Bond to attend his funeral, watch as the casket passed through the chapel and was placed in the hearse, and tell a family member, "I met your uncle at work.  He helped me out when I was dealing with difficult clients."  -cut to several scenes from older Bond movies "Now try not to break this, 007"-


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 21, 2019)

calronmoonflower said:


> If the original never existed it wouldn't have been hated as much.




The trailer also didn't help. It quickly became one of the most downvoted YouTube trailers of all time.



calronmoonflower said:


> As for the new sequel I'm a bit concerned that once again a bad director has been hired for the willingness to go alone with the flow.




A bad director? Wasn't Juno a good movie?

I don't know if he'd be my first pick to direct a comedy though, but he's no Paul Feig.



Ryujin said:


> As I posted on the Nerdist video comments there will be no new Ghostbusters movie, as long as Harlold Ramis remains dead.




Ramis did lend his voice to the videogame, so to me that is the third movie... ar as close to it as we're ever going to get.

But just like with the recent reboot, I'll reserve judgement till there's actually something to judge. Once they release a trailer (and not just a teaser), I may know if this is a movie I want to see, or not.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 21, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> The trailer also didn't help. It quickly became one of the most downvoted YouTube trailers of all time.




Eh. YouTube comments are the worst.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 21, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> The trailer also didn't help. It quickly became one of the most downvoted YouTube trailers of all time.




With respect, that result had very little to do with the trailer, and lots to do with toxic fans.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 21, 2019)

Umbran said:


> With respect, that result had very little to do with the trailer, and lots to do with toxic fans.




It takes a certain level of incompentance to turn your fans toxic.  I mean why would you do that?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 21, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> It takes a certain level of incompentance to turn your fans toxic.  I mean why would you do that?




That's a load of BS. The asshats who were hostile to making a Ghostbusters reboot with women didn't need any prompting to turn into toxic manbabies.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 21, 2019)

billd91 said:


> That's a load of BS. The asshats who were hostile to making a Ghostbusters reboot with women didn't need any prompting to turn into toxic manbabies.




Sure these "asshats" as you call them are the same people that should be queing up outside your movie on opening night wearing their Ghostbuster costumes.

I mean I still dont know how you go about screwing that up?  The worst ranked trailer in history, thats just terrible.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 22, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Sure these "asshats" as you call them are the same people that should be queing up outside your movie on opening night wearing their Ghostbuster costumes.
> 
> I mean I still dont know how you go about screwing that up?  The worst ranked trailer in history, thats just terrible.




And they might have queued up, but apparently having a reboot with all the principal character played by women was a deal breaker for some, so they ginned up a backlash that most people seemed to have noticed... present company excepted for some reason.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 22, 2019)

In other news, that hopefully won't lead to a mod swinging mod text : 

Leslie Jones Calls ‘Ghostbusters’ Sequel ‘Insulting’

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/leslie-jones-calls-ghostbusters-reboot-032340755.html


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 22, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> In other news, that hopefully won't lead to a mod swinging mod text :
> 
> Leslie Jones Calls ‘Ghostbusters’ Sequel ‘Insulting’
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/leslie-jones-calls-ghostbusters-reboot-032340755.html




She might not realise that it isn't a male driven cast and is instead a teenager driven cast with male and female cast members. As is, movies seem to get reboots all the time. We've had plenty of spider-man movies that ignore the previous set of movies, a couple of hulk movies that don't seem to be part of the main MCU (or maybe the edward norton one is but he was just replaced because he didn't come back?). Death at a Funeral has had two versions; the last transformers movie, Bumblebee, ignores the Michael Bay movies; Batman has had a few movie series now. It happens, movies get rebooted and previous versions get ignored.


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 22, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> In other news, that hopefully won't lead to a mod swinging mod text :
> 
> Leslie Jones Calls ‘Ghostbusters’ Sequel ‘Insulting’
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/leslie-jones-calls-ghostbusters-reboot-032340755.html




Leslie Jones was the most insulting thing to happen to a Ghostbusters movie and her opinion is ridiculous on so many levels


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 22, 2019)

Tonguez said:


> Leslie Jones was the most insulting thing to happen to a Ghostbusters movie and her opinion is ridiculous on so many levels



Why was she the most insulting thing to happen to a Ghostbusters movie?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 22, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> She might not realise that it isn't a male driven cast and is instead a teenager driven cast with male and female cast members. As is, movies seem to get reboots all the time. We've had plenty of spider-man movies that ignore the previous set of movies, a couple of hulk movies that don't seem to be part of the main MCU (or maybe the edward norton one is but he was just replaced because he didn't come back?). Death at a Funeral has had two versions; the last transformers movie, Bumblebee, ignores the Michael Bay movies; Batman has had a few movie series now. It happens, movies get rebooted and previous versions get ignored.




Maybe - but I can see where she's coming from. By reaching back to the original for the latest announcement, it's almost like they're trying to repudiate the 2016 version and get a do-over reboot. We may get plenty of reboots out of Hollywood, but not everything has the same context of man-baby driven rage and controversy.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 22, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> It takes a certain level of incompentance to turn your fans toxic.  I mean why would you do that?




Oh, no, the filmmakers didn't turn the fans toxic.  The fans did it to themselves, over the years when there were no films, by buying in to a level of entitlement unsupported by reason, evidence, good taste, or anything more structurally sound than a wet noodle.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 22, 2019)

Remember, “fan” is derived from “fanatic”.  Not exactly terminology implying rational and measured responses to issues involving the object of fandom.


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 22, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Maybe - but I can see where she's coming from. By reaching back to the original for the latest announcement, it's almost like they're trying to repudiate the 2016 version and get a do-over reboot. We may get plenty of reboots out of Hollywood, but not everything has the same context of man-baby driven rage and controversy.




doing the 'next' Ghostbusters movie has been talked about for a decade or more, but the 2016 movie chose to not be a continuation but a complete reboot, it cut itself off from the original and chose instead to pin itself to an  'all girl' gimmick. It didn't work, the story and jokes fell flat. The makers of the movie took a gamble on a gimmick but failed to give the fans something they wanted.


The new movie being a continuation (and apparently the original cast are returning) is what the fans have been asking for, thats no guarantee of quality but it does mean the movie is following the legacy and not being pinned on a gimmick. 



cbwjm said:


> Why was she the most insulting thing to happen to a Ghostbusters movie?




Leslie Jones is a ghetto caricature, she is the only non-scientist on the team, she's incompetent and is only there to be a loud, brash sidekick.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 22, 2019)

Tonguez said:


> doing the 'next' Ghostbusters movie has been talked about for a decade or more, but the 2016 movie chose to not be a continuation but a complete reboot, it cut itself off from the original and chose instead to pin itself to an  'all girl' gimmick. It didn't work, the story and jokes fell flat. The makers of the movie took a gamble on a gimmick but failed to give the fans something they wanted.
> 
> The new movie being a continuation (and apparently the original cast are returning) is what the fans have been asking for, thats no guarantee of quality but it does mean the movie is following the legacy and not being pinned on a gimmick.




Except it's probably not what they've been asking for if it's going to focus on teen Ghostbusters (cue backlash #2 in 2 years - assuming the project even gets of the ground?). 

The 'next' Ghostbusters that had been talked about for years had been continually torpedoed by Bill Murray's lack of interest/approval. So finally they decided to side step it with another idea - and guess what - Bill Murray was on board for a cameo (just like Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson). And no, most of the jokes didn't fall flat or on a simply disinterested public. If that were the case you'd be likely to see a much more balanced response from men and women because there'd be no reason to expect them to differ too much - but you don't. The negative responses are overwhelmingly men (like 80% overwhelmingly men). It's not simply a matter of giving fans something that didn't live up to the hype - it was a very sexist response.


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 22, 2019)

Yeah. At the moment, I'm not really too keen on this sequel. The sequel I would have liked to see is probably 10-15 years too late. Might end up being one of those Netflix movies that I'll watch at some point which is, I think, where the reboot is currently.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 22, 2019)

I'm sure I'll watch any movie called Ghostbusters. I'm a sucker for Ghostbusters.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 22, 2019)

Umbran said:


> With respect, that result had very little to do with the trailer, and lots to do with toxic fans.




Oh, thats a load of nonsense. I watched that trailer and before I saw it I was genuine interested at the idea of a new GB movie. I couldn't give a damn if it was an all ladies or all men cast. But after watching that trailer, with Leslie Jones loudly screaming at the screen, I was so put off by that film. I'm sure I am not in the minority for having that opinion. That trailer was absolutely terrible. I'm sure a lot of fans felt the same way.



billd91 said:


> The negative responses are overwhelmingly men (like 80% overwhelmingly men). It's not simply a matter of giving fans something that didn't live up to the hype - it was a very sexist response.




Saying fans are sexist for not liking a terrible trailer, is one of the most sexist things I've heard for a long while. That trailer was absolute garbage, and the gender of the actors has nothing to do with that. It even got basic facts about the series wrong... how do you mess that up? Sony was in a terrible hurry to quickly put together a different trailer, after they removed most of the negative comments on the trailer (specifically those with polite and solid arguments against it).


----------



## billd91 (Jan 22, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> Saying fans are sexist for not liking a terrible trailer, is one of the most sexist things I've heard for a long while. That trailer was absolute garbage, and the gender of the actors has nothing to do with that. It even got basic facts about the series wrong... how do you mess that up? Sony was in a terrible hurry to quickly put together a different trailer, after they removed most of the negative comments on the trailer (specifically those with polite and solid arguments against it).




 Hey, feel free to try to gaslight us all you want, the record is pretty clear that there was a backlash of men offended that the franchise was going to be represented by a “gimmic” of women instead of men. We’re just not going to fall for it.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 22, 2019)

Yeah, we're not going to get into any gaslighting nonsense which tries to hide that toxic backlash. There's no place for that here.

Keep the topic on the upcoming movie, please, folks. I'm not allowing another flamewar about this topic here.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 22, 2019)

What I wonder amid all this - what finally induced Bill Murray to sign on (assuming he has actually done so and the hype isn't just optimism on Aykroyd and Reitman's parts). He's been the main holdout on a sequel starring the originals. Could it be he still isn't confirmed or is minor enough that he's willing to basically do something like a cameo+ to do it?


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 22, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> A bad director? Wasn't Juno a good movie?
> 
> I don't know if he'd be my first pick to direct a comedy though, but he's no Paul Feig.




IMNSHO, one of the reasons the 2016 Ghostbusters failed was that it completely sucked as a horror movie.

One of the things the original Ghostbusters had that made it awesome was that it succeeded as both a comedy and a horror.  On the horror side it had legitimate suspense and a real plot with multiple layers of conflict, coupled with great special effects and surprisingly good cinematography.  The comedy works with this to give depth to the characters, create relationships, and provide mood.  The 1984 film is one of the best examples of blending genres, so you don't have to love every aspect of it to find something you like.

The 2016 film, on the other hand, was pretty much just a comedy.  The horror element was there by requirement, but it had no teeth.  The jokes over ran all elements of the movie, including the side conflicts, the cameos, and the major climax as a dance scene.  The special effects were cartoony.  The bad guy was laughable.  There was nothing really approaching scary or suspenseful at any point.  So if the comedy doesn't connect with you, it's just an unfunny comedy and nothing else.

To that point, Ivan Reitman had a number of horror movies under his belt before he did Ghostbusters (Cannibal Girls, Shivers, Rabid) and even sci-fi (Heavy Metal, Spacehunters) in addition to his comedy work.  He had range.  Paul Fieg didn't, and still doesn't; he's just a comedian.  

Jason Reitman, regardless of your opinion of Juno and others, is really a drama/comedy kind of guy.  His only experience with horror is being a producer on Jennifers's Body, which was a pretty forgetful by-the-numbers movie.  So, while I'll admit he gives me a lot more hope than Feig, my expectations aren't that high.  Maybe he'll take some of his dad's experience into the movie.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 22, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## billd91 (Jan 22, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> It had a great theme song (that just happened to be stolen from Huey Lewis).
> 
> Other than that? It was a decent movie, with the charming and acerbic Bill Murray.* It was a decent movie for 1984, bringing in less money than Beverly Hills Cop and more money than Temple of Doom, Gremlins, and the Karate Kid.
> 
> ...




Oh, I wouldn't sell it short. Hardly anyone realizes they're making or watching a movie that will stand as a testament to cinema long after it's done with its theatrical run. Ghostbusters has fared well over 30 years after it was made. It's certainly more memorable and funnier than many of its contemporaries. Just because it's an 80s comedy doesn't mean it isn't worth being considered a classic movie. I'd put it up there with movies like Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, the Producers, Tootsie, Annie Hall...




lowkey13 said:


> If you hold something too tight, it tends to asphyxiate.




A good observation on so many issues.


----------



## ccs (Jan 22, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> Saying fans are sexist for not liking a terrible trailer, is one of the most sexist things I've heard for a long while. That trailer was absolute garbage, and the gender of the actors has nothing to do with that.




It wasn't the gender of the cast that I decided to pass on, it was the cast themselves.  
Since I knew I wouldn't be entertained by them, there was no point in seeing it.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 22, 2019)

If I had to pick the perfect horror-comedy film, I’d be torn between Ghostbusters and Beetlejuice.

Though, going on a tangent, I'd say Blazing Saddles remains in a league of its own. The comedy and social commentary in that movie is still sharp enough to cut diamonds.



billd91 said:


> Just because it's an 80s comedy doesn't mean it isn't worth being considered a classic movie. I'd put it up there with movies like Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, the Producers, Tootsie, Annie Hall...


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 22, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Oh, no, the filmmakers didn't turn the fans toxic.  The fans did it to themselves, over the years when there were no films, by buying in to a level of entitlement unsupported by reason, evidence, good taste, or anything more structurally sound than a wet noodle.




Well the good news is even a bad Ghostbusters movie can still earn over 200 million and green light another movie.

Maybe they will get it right this time?


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 23, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> If I had to pick the perfect horror-comedy film, I’d be torn between Ghostbusters and Beetlejuice.




Which is why I'm also very excited about a possible Beetlejuice sequel, though perhaps that is also a bit naive of me. Tim Burton's movies have been on a steep decline in quality, so I'm not sure if I'd even like the final product if I finally got to see it. But I do want to see more Beetlejuice. It is a movie that would benefit well from today's improved visual effects... but then again, Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory shows that this isn't always a plus.



Shasarak said:


> Well the good news is even a bad Ghostbusters movie can still earn over 200 million and green light another movie.
> 
> Maybe they will get it right this time?





It's still a highly valuable franchise and Sony knows it. But I think fans have plenty of reasons to be skeptical of any future movies now. The first trailer had better be really good, or a lot of fans may choose to stay at home.



lowkey13 said:


> It had a great theme song (that just happened to be stolen from Huey Lewis).
> 
> Other than that? It was a decent movie, with the charming and acerbic Bill Murray.* It was a decent movie for 1984, bringing in less money than Beverly Hills Cop and more money than Temple of Doom, Gremlins, and the Karate Kid.
> 
> This wasn't some classic of cinema. This was a fine movie, with some great concepts (the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, ghostbusting) and some unforgettable lines that continue to be quoted to this day (Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria .... Yes, it's true, that man has no ...).




I also feel this is selling the movie a bit short. It is one of the best known classics from the 80s, and still has lasting appeal and dedicated fans. You can walk up to a lot of people and ask them "Who are you going to call?", and they can finish the sentence. Plus, the Ghostbusters game from a few years ago was a big success too.

Besides, how is a movie that is so instantly quotable, not a classic?


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 23, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 23, 2019)

Yeah, his work has been off for a while, though it pains me to say it. Big Eyes is probably the best thing he's done in recent years. And arguably, the least "Burtonesque."



Imaculata said:


> Tim Burton's movies have been on a steep decline in quality, so I'm not sure if I'd even like the final product if I finally got to see it. But I do want to see more Beetlejuice. It is a movie that would benefit well from today's improved visual effects... but then again, Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory shows that this isn't always a plus.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 23, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Well, as far as the dedicated fans go ... I mean, there just weren't a lot of even good movies in the 80s, and certainly not a lot that even vaguely appealed to the more nerdy.
> 
> But I think a lot of people here are really devaluing the term "classic." There's nothing wrong with being a good, enjoyable movie, right? Those are hard enough to make. But it's not like we're discussing Vertigo, or Citizen Kane, or the oeuvre of Buster Keaton.
> 
> ...




If Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Tron, War Games, Terminator, Buckaroo Bonzai, ET, Flash Gordon, Excalibur, and Blade Runner aren't vaguely appealing to your more nerdy side...

If the benchmark to be considered "classic" is that a film must be 60 years old and studied by art students...

And if you just plain don't like Ghostbusters, claiming it's neither funny nor scary...

Then, maybe a thread about Ghostbusters just isn't your cup of tea.  Would you mind if the rest of us enjoy it without you?


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 23, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 23, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> But I do want to see more Beetlejuice. It is a movie that would benefit well from today's improved visual effects... but then again, Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory shows that this isn't always a plus.




I'm worried about new special effects for Beetlejuice.  So much of the "feel" of that movie was in the practicals.  From the sets to the wacky costumes, it was all about the physical stuff.  Also, I love stop-motion animation.  If you try to recreate all that in CGI, you could kill it fast.  In a lot of ways, I think the 2016 Ghostbusters suffered from this, too.  None of the cartoon ghosts in that one came close to the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.

I could be wrong.  The new Mad Max showed that you can blend CGI and real world stuff well, and animation like the Gruffalo shows you can make CGI match clay pretty well.  But I'm definitely leery.


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 23, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> And there is a huge difference between thinking a movie was entertaining (which I have stated) and enjoying aspects of it, and thinking it is some holy text needing canonization and protection from mean people that might point out its flaws and/or enjoy a version of it that isn't trapped in amber by people that have more respect for the past than the present.
> 
> But carry on!




by that criteria, there are no classic movies and really unless you're a critic or a film student all the pontificating about Citizen Kanes cinematography and multiple genre is meaningless, audiences want to be entertained and the fact is of all the 80's movies Ghostbusters stands out as the most entertaining.
I loved Buckaroo Banzai and Star Wars and the other 80s movies but Ghostbusters is the one that I can sing along to, quote and smile as I recall its characters and antics (even moreso than Flash Gordon which I'd put second). It doesnt need to be the most funny or most scary because it has a particular energy and 80s-ness that I beleive is the reason it has endured so long.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 23, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## billd91 (Jan 23, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So here's why I really dislike all of this, using your post as an example (sorry to single you out for this, really)-
> 
> First, there's this bizarre, but undeniable, strain of anti-intellectualism. Which is so amazingly strange to me, given that many of us fought pitched battles so that so-called nerd culture and intellectual pursuits would no longer be marginalized by mainstream culture.
> 
> ...




There's a fine line between intellectualism and elitism, between artistic merit and snobbery. Repudiation of elitism isn't the same as anti-intellectualism. Classic cinema shouldn't be reserved just for movies conducive to overanalysis and overwrought film school theses. Mainstream movies may also be classics due to their success in maintaining their relevance, their resonance with their viewers, use or even establishment of tropes, as well as other things I'm not going to bother to add here.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 23, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 23, 2019)

All I care about is how entertaining a movie is. I dont care about cinematography or how great a shot is. If I was going to sit down with someone and they said I had the choice of citizen Kane or Ghostbusters, I'd choose Ghostbusters every time. I find it more entertaining and I think it still holds up well as a great movie.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 24, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 24, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So, a long time ago, I was sitting in a restaurant eating with a cute girl (who would later become my wife!). Seated at another table were some kids, around college age. One of the kids was boasting, in the manner you do, about how worldly he was and how much he loved Japanese food (which, at that time, was still a little adventurous!). Anyway, at one point, he said very loudly, "Yeah, what have the French ever done for world cuisine, anyway?" Not humorously, or ironically, but as a straight-up statement of fact. Anyway, that statement (which I know you understand to be ludicrous on its face) has become something of touchstone going on, so that when I see someone proudly being arrogant about their ignorance, I (or my SO) say, "Yeah, what have the French every done for world cuisine?"
> 
> There is a point to that anecdote. People like what they like. If you enjoy Stephen King, that's great! But that doesn't mean that Faulkner, or Pynchon, are any less. And if love to look at Thomas Kinkade painting, more power to you. But that doesn't devalue a Kandinsky. Heck, if you love you some AfterMASH reruns, I'm not going to force Halt and Catch Fire on your tired eyeballs.
> 
> ...



First of all, I wasn't boasting that I would prefer to sit down and watch Ghostbusters over citizen Kane, that's just you reading too much into what I said.

From what I've seen in this thread, it seems people are taking offence when someone comes out and say that because a movie, in this case ghostbuaters, doesn't have all the high points of a movie like citizen Kane that it can't be considered a classic. That does come across as a bit snobbish and people aren't being all anti-intellectualism to disagree with that stance.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 24, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## ccs (Jan 24, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> We all know that, traditionally, things that were of childhood were meant to stay there for a reason.




Says the 40-50 year old guy preaching on a D&D forum....


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 24, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Blue (Jan 24, 2019)

Making the theme music a bit more metal...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF39e_hnFb8


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 24, 2019)

Deset Gled said:


> If Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Tron, War Games, Terminator, Buckaroo Bonzai, ET, Flash Gordon, Excalibur, and Blade Runner aren't vaguely appealing to your more nerdy side...




Most if not all of those you listed are considered as classics for one reason or another be it the way it was made (Tron), the way it portrayed an activity (War Games), what it added to a genre (Blade Runner)


The word "classic" may also be seen as an intensifier of sorts, implying works that have become seen as cult over the years, similar to a Sleeper Hit — due to factors such as Audience Participation, Notable Quotables, or other engrossing aspects that attract a select audience who proselytize fervently and disdain non-believers. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CultClassic 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Hollywood_cinema  sadly looks like nothing since the 60s has been a "classic"


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 24, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## ccs (Jan 24, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Well, someone has to remind all the whippersnappers that the Paladin was a mistake.




No, not all paladins.  Just the non-human, non-LG ones.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 24, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> All I care about is how entertaining a movie is. I dont care about cinematography or how great a shot is. If I was going to sit down with someone and they said I had the choice of citizen Kane or Ghostbusters, I'd choose Ghostbusters every time. I find it more entertaining and I think it still holds up well as a great movie.




Citizen Kane is still gathering dust on my shelves, waiting to be watched. But every time I try to put the DVD in, my eyes lean over to movies like Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Terminator, and I choose to watch that instead.


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 24, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> Citizen Kane is still gathering dust on my shelves, waiting to be watched. But every time I try to put the DVD in, my eyes lean over to movies like Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Terminator, and I choose to watch that instead.



Back to future and terminator. Other classic movies that stand the test of time. All of these movies I've seen multiple times. That doesn't mean citizen Kane isn't a great movie, just that it's one of those great movies that I'm probably never going to watch more than once.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 24, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> Citizen Kane is still gathering dust on my shelves, waiting to be watched. But every time I try to put the DVD in, my eyes lean over to movies like Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Terminator, and I choose to watch that instead.




And when Imaculata's Favorites becomes the gold standard for greatness in media, that's going to be telling for old Citizen Kane.

But, let us be clear - strict popularity (especially current popularity) has never been the sole, or even major, measure of literary quality of a work.  

I expect few, if any, folks who post on EN World actively seek out and listen to Elvis Presley music any more.  But anyone who denies that his work is "classic," fails to understand the history of the modern musical genres, or his impact on what came after.  

To tell how classic Ghostbusters really is, we should probably look at how much impact it had on things that came after it - Would movies be the same today if Ghostbusters never existed?  Did the Gostbusters style of movie basically end when Bill Murray and friends stopped making movies?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 24, 2019)

Umbran said:


> And when Imaculata's Favorites becomes the gold standard for greatness in media, that's going to be telling for old Citizen Kane.
> 
> But, let us be clear - strict popularity (especially current popularity) has never been the sole, or even major, measure of literary quality of a work.
> 
> ...




Here are some ideas:
https://www.rollingstone.com/movies...-gave-birth-to-the-modern-blockbuster-121570/
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12204422/ghostbusters-political-movies
https://www.tor.com/2014/09/11/ghostbusting-lovecraft/


----------



## Morrus (Jan 24, 2019)

There's no definition of a "classic" movie. Are _E.T._ or _Jaws_ classic movies? To me, they are. I'm sure some think they're popular tripe.  Roger Ebert considers them classics, and magazines like Entertainment Weekly list_ Pulp Fiction, Titanic, Jerry Maguire,_ and even _When Harry Met Sally_ in that list. Ebert asks:

"What's your definition of "classic"? Record-breaking? Precedent-setting? Influential? Enduring? How soon can such a status be determined? (Films have to be at least 25 years old to qualify for the National Film Registry; acts don't become eligible for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame until 25 years after the release of their first record.) Are their films from the 1990s and 2000s that you would already consider worthy of classic status?"

I think it's clear that it's a subjective question._ Ghostbusters_? Sure. To me, it's a classic 80s movie. But then so is _Top Gun_ ferchrissake!


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 24, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 24, 2019)

My definition of Classic is movies that I like.

And using that criteria Ghostbusters qualifies as a Classic but Top Gun is not.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 25, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> In fairness, I don't think those are good examples. Both Jaws and E.T. would be on almost any reasonable list of great movies (depending on the cut off and number) and there isn't much question about the acting, plot, pacing, or visual vocabulary employed in those movies. In fact, E.T. especially is so influential from a visual perspective that it continues to be referenced to this day.
> 
> I mean, it's not like Spielberg is some random, Alan Smithee-level replacement director. He's not exactly a Ron Howard-type you bring in. Or, um, Ivan Reitman.*
> 
> ...




 I don't think its to fair to judge 80's movies with social mores from 30+ years later. I have gone back and watched some older movies. Blazing Saddles was one of them and its so offensive now days but its still funny and even at the time it was satire. 

 I haven't seen Revenge of the Nerds lately but can't imagine it ageing well. Other movies I have watched recently are Blues Brothers (still great), Animal House (funny), Police Academy I, II, III (the 1st one is somewhat funny series has not aged well).

 The other thing is context. Some of that stuff was so over the top at the time no one took it to seriously. I used to watch Married With Children with my mother, rewatched it couple of years ago with my wife and they loved it despite it being very very politically incorrect these days.

 Even if you watch the classic British Comedies now (Blackadder, Bottom, Young Ones, The New Statesmen, Red Dwarf) you're gonna get gay jokes etc which was pop culture in the 80's. The PC 80's shows rewatched now are terrible as they are usually anti drugs being a common theme but they're boring as and to moralising (drugs are bad m'kay). Its like early South Park its so over the top offensive its social satire. A clever (if offensive) comedy is basically there to make you think about things. 

 Those shows and movies were basically a product of their time.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 25, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 25, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't think its to fair to judge 80's movies with social mores from 30+ years later.




I'm not sure if I agree.

I'd argue that those afore mentioned things were always wrong, regardless of the changing social mores.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 25, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> I'm not sure if I agree.
> 
> I'd argue that those afore mentioned things were always wrong, regardless of the changing social mores.




Here's the simple question to ask - did women of the time *enjoy* being treated like that?  If not, it wasn't okay.

Hint:  No, they didn't enjoy it at the time.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 25, 2019)

Feminism and the women's rights movements began in the 19th century. Misogyny can't be excused as something they didn't know better about in the 80s.

That being said, I think it's okay to watch and enjoy these movies, but it's important to recognize elements as problematic when they are.



Zardnaar said:


> I don't think its to fair to judge 80's movies with social mores from 30+ years later.


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 25, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> "*It's perfectly problematic for an 80s movie.* Sure, it's not super rape-y, like Revenge of the Nerds, *but it's definitely uncomfortable* (I mean, we all recognize that it's probably wrong for professors to sleep with coeds under false pretenses, right, even when they are all cool and stuff). And the whole pursuit of Dana ... that's wasn't charming, that was creepy as eff. *Again, times change, but if you watch this movie with a younger generation, you have some 'splainin to do* as to why Venkman is "funny charming" and not "creepy rapey.""
> .




Its true that Peter Venkman is portrayed as a fast talking womanizing charlatan, but they're not suppose to be positive traits, Venkman is a 'bit of a dick' who needs to change his ways for the team to succeed, which is why although Venkman is the front man, it is Ray and Egon who are ultimately the true heroes of Ghostbusters.

Admittedly, thats probably not something a casual viewer is going to pick up on


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 25, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 25, 2019)

I wonder if there's a time where Bill Murray didn't just show up and ad lib the whole thing?

Anyway, my favorite lines of the entire movie are actually between Ray and Winston. There's nothing funny about it, and it still gives me chills:

[video=youtube;iK6hI423gcw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK6hI423gcw[/video]



lowkey13 said:


> b. All the good quotes and lines are his. Fun fact- this is probably because all of the lines you are so fond of were ad libbed by Bill Murray. He was basically improv'ing his whole role in terms of dialogue.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 25, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Here's the simple question to ask - did women of the time *enjoy* being treated like that?  If not, it wasn't okay.
> 
> Hint:  No, they didn't enjoy it at the time.




 They didn't but a lot of them at the time didn't take it to seriously. I watched a lot of those movies at the time with my mother and sister and they found a lot of it funny.

 Have not seen Revenge of the Nerds for a long time but yeah I can see that one not aging well. Rewatching some of that stuff I missed a lot of the jokes the 1st time around (Married with Children comes to mind).

 Even at the time some of that was so over the top though it wasn't offensive as such or it was deliberately offensive kinda like South Park. A lot of National Lampoon stuff falls into that category.

 If people think Ghostbusters is bad has anyone watched Blazing Saddles recently (its on Netflix over here). Is it art, satire, or needs to be burned?

 I laughed at Married With Children and Blazing Saddles. Police Academy has not aged well however and my wife thought it was trash and I stopped watching after the 3rd one. Blues Brothers is very funny still but they didn't go into shock value to much like the National Lampoon stuff.

 Some of that stuff I remember watching as a kid though because it had boobies in, or because it was offensive (even then). Dad got VHS tapes for free and would bring home a lot of them in the 80's. Want to rewatch some of the old Bud Spencer and Terrance Hill stuff but can't find them anywhere.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 25, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 25, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Um .... Mel Brooks was making fun of prejudice in that movie; there are many things that you can accuse Mel Brooks of, but subtlety isn't one of those things.
> 
> To the extent that someone, today, misses the forest (the black characters in the movie are the smart ones, the ignorant rubes are the white people) for the trees (use of N-word), then they can't really be helped.
> 
> In fact, given the time period (1974), this would be an example of a movie not of its time, but instead critiquing its time.




 I still liked Blazing Saddles. A lot of people complain about Married With Children online and I rewatched it and Al is the rube and usually gets his just desserts. Some of the things Peggy and Kelly come out with or how they are portrayed has not aged well but they mock everyone in that show. The men basically are beer drinking imbeciles and the context is real women would not like them.

 Blazing Saddles was one of the movies we had on VHS, it shocked my wife a lot when we watched in couple of months ago. She asked "Is this really a western" and I couldn't really explain what it actually was easily. Animal House just seemed to be the prototype of American Pie and I didn't remember watching that one back in the day.

 Is there such a thing as good offensive and bad offensive?


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 25, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 25, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So, that's not an easy question. For Americans familiar with the First Amendment, I am reminded that the urge to censor is greatest where debate is most disquieting, and that the right to provoke, offend, and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment.
> 
> But that just tells us about the government; it doesn't tell us how we should view things that are offensive. Great art often shocks, provokes, or offends people, often when it is made, before becoming banal at later dates - I mean, it's difficult for us to understand, today, that the Rite of Spring (supposedly?) caused a riot.
> 
> ...




 Could just be over analysing things as well. Millions of people saw Ghostbusters as a kid, I don't think it would have had much enduring impact beyond "I liked it as a kid" or disliked it whatever. 

 The 1st amendment makes porn legal in the USA, we don't actually have the equivalent here but its kind of in our society mores by default. 

 I don't remmebr much of Revenge of the Nerd beyond it being funny but I do remember it had naked women and the guys were perving at them using cameras IIRC. I also remember one of the lines regarding what they saw which I won't repeat here. IIRC it was nerds vs jocks but its probably been 30 odd years since I have seen that film. Most of the films I remember fondly are things like ET, Gremlins, Goonies, Labyrinth, Ghostbusters, Lost Boys, Batman. Fairly typical 80's movies for the most part and VHS of the 60's and 70's as well- Herbie the Love Bug, Sound of Music, Rocky Horror Picture Show, BLazing Saddles, Watch Out We're Mad.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 25, 2019)

I've watched Ghostbusters 1 with kids who are half my age if not a tad younger (mind you I'm only 33) and they found Venkman's attempts pathetically funny.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 25, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 25, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 25, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Cool story, bro.
> 
> I've watched it with 12-13 year olds, and it required some explanation. Then again- they are gifted, since they play TTRPGs.




the only thing I had to explain was the shock experiment which I was asked about and was thus summed up : "so basically it was just to see how much they would put up with it?" "Yup" along with the game show host reference....

EDIT: Found it.. Crosses the Line Twice https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrossesTheLineTwice

Essentially, a Moral Event Horizon Played for Laughs.

So sleazy it's funny.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 26, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I mean .... kind of? Yes, Venkman has to learn to less of a jerk (the, um, hero's journey, so to speak), but there's no question that-
> 
> a. He's the hero; and
> b. All the good quotes and lines are his. Fun fact- this is probably because all of the lines you are so fond of were ad libbed by Bill Murray. He was basically improv'ing his whole role in terms of dialogue.
> ...




I don't really think it's an understatement. Venkman is a womanizer but he still doesn't cross the lines crossed in either Revenge of the Nerds or Sixteen Candles. He tries to schmooze the coed by deceiving her about how well she's doing, not by deceiving her, at this point potential, consent by having sex with her under the pretense he's actually someone else. In fact, he resists the temptation to take advantage of Dana when it's clear he could actually do so.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 26, 2019)

billd91 said:


> I don't really think it's an understatement. Venkman is a womanizer but he still doesn't cross the lines crossed in either Revenge of the Nerds or Sixteen Candles. He tries to schmooze the coed by deceiving her about how well she's doing, not by deceiving her, at this point potential, consent by having sex with her under the pretense he's actually someone else. In fact, he resists the temptation to take advantage of Dana when it's clear he could actually do so.




I dunno. He does carry enough tranquilliser to kill a horse when on a date.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 26, 2019)

I just rewatched Revenge of the Nerds last night and I was pleased to find that it still holds up.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 27, 2019)

Killing has never been considered a good and desirable thing, and yet movies - be they classics or just some mindless fun or unfun movie - are full of it, and often the "cool" protagonist is the one that does a lot of killing, but it's okay, because he's the hero and fighting the good fight. Maybe for that reason it should be no surprise at all that maybe the "creepy" or "stalkery" 80s characters weren't such a big deal.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 28, 2019)

Morrus said:


> I dunno. He does carry enough tranquilliser to kill a horse when on a date.




That has always been one of the weirdest throw away lines in the film to me.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 28, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> That has always been one of the weirdest throw away lines in the film to me.




I just figured he went to a pharmacy or had it delivered..he has Ph.D.s in both parapsychology and psychology.  Also Thorazine was prescribed by doctors as a sedative for anxiety and sleeplessness. And her room looks ransacked...so she could have had it and the dosage was just a goof....also

The official Richard Mueller novelization describes him hunting around in her apartment for medical supplies. Quite why she has powerful sedatives on hand isn't explained in any detail although someone who lives in "spook central" could feasibly be suffering from insomnia, hearing voices, mild paranoia or migraines, all of which are treatable with Thorazine:

Dana Barrett still floated above the bed while Peter Venkman rummaged through the drawers of her dresser. "She’s an artist", he thought. "She’s got to have some Valium somewhere."

It's worth noting that Louis was buying painkillers by the bucketload to deal with his headaches.

“I have acetylsalicylic acid but I get the generic from Walgreen’s cause I can get six hundred tablets for thirty-five percent less than the cost of three hundred of the name brand. Do you have a headache?”

as an aside I need to get a copy of the movie with the trivia track,which has all kinds of bits...lol the fact that in each take the interest  on the loan went up ..lol


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 28, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 28, 2019)

We get it...what was funny then not so much now 

EDIT: remind me of this http://www.cracked.com/article_25354_uh-venkman-from-ghostbusters-was-probably-sexual-predator.html there feel better?

For all those who aren't buzz kills there's too many pages devoted to fan theories on reddit  *https://tinyurl.com/yaqo55o3*


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 28, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## billd91 (Jan 28, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> 5. It was clearly a "line," and to the extent there is any commentary from the people involved afterwards (I believe Reitman) it was treated as a joke without further explanation, which means that-
> 
> a. In the most favorable light, it was for Venkman (iow, he was a partier).
> 
> ...




Keeping in mind this was the first half of the 1980s and drug humor was better known than date-rape humor, I always assumed it was for recreational use. 

However, since it's also used to suppress psychoses and hallucinations, it could make sense for a parapsychologist with a loose relationship to strict regulations to carry it around.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 28, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> I'm not sure if I agree.
> 
> I'd argue that those afore mentioned things were always wrong, regardless of the changing social mores.




Depends. Some things may be always wrong, but the interpretation of a situation may depend on a certain cultural assumption that has changed over time. It's how you get from "Baby, It's Cold Outside" from being an Oscar-winning song written and originally performed as banter to being considered date-rapey. Same, probably, with Venkman's thorazine which may have shifted from being assumed to be for personal recreation to, again, being date-rapey.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 28, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn (Jan 28, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> b. In the most unfavorable light, he was ... a womanizer. Ahem. It wasn't like "jokes" about that sort of thing were unheard of at the time.



I recently watched a couple seasons of Taxi. There were an awful lot of jokes about Louie raping Elaine.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 28, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> I recently watched a couple seasons of Taxi. There were an awful lot of jokes about Louie raping Elaine.




 Try Watching Married With Children as well.

 I was around at the time for a lot of these shows. Missed a few jokes as I was young but at the time it generally wan't a big deal or it was so over the top people knew not to get offended by it (Blazing Saddle). Gay jokes were very much a staple of 80's comedies. Married With Children was designed to offend but the context of it was Al is a jackass and things like racism are not OK. One of Al's infamous lines that was controversial at the time was "And they wonder why we call them queens" in reference to drag queens. They also refused to screen an episode which was basically a sex tape (it screened here but not in the USA). 

 Animal House seemed to have started the frat boy type comedies as well. Anything that National Lampoon was doing was deliberately designed to offend, there is a decent show on Netflix about it. Early Bond movies as well where Bond strikes a women are shocking now. The only places you see male on female violence is usually in shows making a point (its not OK), or the female in question is so powerful its considered fine (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, super heros).


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 28, 2019)

Watched in interesting video on youtube. The movies where they are taking beloved franchises and replacing men with women seem to be underperforming (Ghostbusters, Oceans 8) or they are changing course (Star Wars). 

 Those movies that are more original with a female/minority lead seem to be doing fine ( Black Panther, Wonder Women). Basically if you push the diversity thing to hard and make a bad movie it can blow up. Do it cleverly and make a good movie its fine.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 28, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Watched in interesting video on youtube. The movies where they are taking beloved franchises and replacing men with women seem to be underperforming (Ghostbusters, Oceans 8)




Ocean's 8 returned $297M on a $70M budget and was the #1 movie the week it was released.  Likewise, Ghostbusters may not have knocked it out of the park, but still managed to make about $85M over its budget before home video, and clearly made enough money to justify another movie in the franchise.  Don't confuse "underperforming" with "heavily criticized".


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 28, 2019)

Deset Gled said:


> Ocean's 8 returned $297M on a $70M budget and was the #1 movie the week it was released.  Likewise, Ghostbusters may not have knocked it out of the park, but still managed to make about $85M over its budget before home video, and clearly made enough money to justify another movie in the franchise.  Don't confuse "underperforming" with "heavily criticized".




Oceans 8 earned a lot less money than other films in the franchise. Adjusted for inflation its alot less. Oceans 11 was $450 million adjusted for inflation its 638 million. Star Wars revenue is also down as those figures also came out recently.

 Ghost busters (2016) made 229 million, GB 1984 made 295 million ( 712 million inflation adjusted).

 And marketing costs are a lot higher now. Dress it up how you like the remakes are making about half to a third of the originals. Punters are voting with their feet, hell Disney probably lost money on Solo and TLJ  made 30% more money than Rogue One and sales of the toys are down as well. That is not opinion its fact its in their annual report a few weeks ago. Disney Marvel is in a good place, SW not so much.

 Put simply the fans of a lot of these franchises are not happy and he numbers seem to backing them up. 5 Star Wars film cancelled, Rian Johnson go bye bye, Kathleen Kennedy promoted to a role removing her from Star Wars. The Terminator franchise could be another example. At the end of the day they have to make a good movies regardless of what type of story they are trying to tell and its not a SJW/diversity thing either (Black Panther and Wonder Women were big hits). Its basically stop butchering classic movies. They are basically doing the same thing 4E did, not giving the fans what they want/living up to expectations. Hypothetical new fans are not as good as your baked in loyalists spanning decades although ideally you want both.

 All these franchises at the end of the day have similar problems. 5E is a good counter example, way more diverse but its fundamentally good at least for most people.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 29, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Animal House seemed to have started the frat boy type comedies as well. Anything that National Lampoon was doing was deliberately designed to offend, there is a decent show on Netflix about it. Early Bond movies as well where Bond strikes a women are shocking now. The only places you see male on female violence is usually in shows making a point (its not OK), or the female in question is so powerful its considered fine (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, super heros).




I am half way through watching the second season of the Punisher and he has no quams about hitting women.  And fair enough, if they want to be part of the military then they are going to get hit that is just equal opportunity.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 29, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> I am half way through watching the second season of the Punisher and he has no quams about hitting women.  And fair enough, if they want to be part of the military then they are going to get hit that is just equal opportunity.




 Yeah I think context is key there. If she is a badass/superhero etc its fine. Bond smacked a normal women across the mouth though in one of the earlier movies. You don't really see domestic abuse like that in very many things and if you do its usually portrayed as unacceptable. Bond just casually does it. Domestic abuse used to be a big problem here (still is but but not like the old days listening to the older generations). Never used to be illegal for example.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 29, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Yeah I think context is key there. If she is a badass/superhero etc its fine. Bond smacked a normal women across the mouth though in one of the earlier movies. You don't really see domestic abuse like that in very many things and if you do its usually portrayed as unacceptable. Bond just casually does it. Domestic abuse used to be a big problem here (still is but but not like the old days listening to the older generations). Never used to be illegal for example.




If context is key then what the heck is a normal person doing wandering around the secret moon/volcano/underground bases that Bond is infiltrating then?  You never see Bond beating his wife because she did not cook Uncle Billy some eggs, do you?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 29, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> If context is key then what the heck is a normal person doing wandering around the secret moon/volcano/underground bases that Bond is infiltrating then?  You never see Bond beating his wife because she did not cook Uncle Billy some eggs, do you?




Bond only had a wife in one movie. Once Were Warriors was a social commentary movie and at the time was shocking and hard to watch. I remember watching it in the theatre.

 Bond back hands a women casually for talking back iirc. He didn't beat the crap out of her like Jake. I was raised by mother and sister. Hitting women was a big no no although seeing a female badass like Ripely fight in Aliens was great. 

 I did have to ring 111 once because of a couple beaten with rake handle so seeing Bond do that in the 90's in a 60's movie was shocking for me.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 29, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Bond only had a wife in one movie. Once Were Warriors was a social commentary movie and at the time was shocking and hard to watch. I remember watching it in the theatre.
> 
> Bond back hands a women casually for talking back iirc. He didn't beat the crap out of her like Jake. I was raised by mother and sister. Hitting women was a big no no although seeing a female badass like Ripely fight in Aliens was great.
> 
> I did have to ring 111 once because of a couple beaten with rake handle so seeing Bond do that in the 90's in a 60's movie was shocking for me.




Maybe you were shocked because you imagined that Bond is a good guy with a license to gently massage people?


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Jan 29, 2019)

.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 29, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Maybe you were shocked because you imagined that Bond is a good guy with a license to gently massage people?




No it's because striking women was a big no no. The families it did happen in was kind of an open secret.  Went home last year and found out a few other things as well as some of those kids now adults had been guests of her majesty for domestic violence or sexual assault on there own children.

 We weren't allowed to go to certain houses as children now I know why.

  Some things were not technically illegal until the mid 80's here. You could still get the cane and strap at school until 1986 here. My friend's mother put it best that unless your father or brother could beat up your husband women could have it fairly rough in some families.

 So yeah some of those movies that were offensive were still better than what could happen at home. I doubt it was any better in the US or UK.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 29, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Some things were not technically illegal until the mid 80's here. You could still get the cane and strap at school until 1986 here.




Your dreaming, the cane did not stop in 1986.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 29, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Your dreaming, the cane did not stop in 1986.




 That was when it was made illegal IIRC. At my school a teacher was fired in 1992 for using it. Said school you could still get the bash for being gay into the 90's as well. 

 This was only 1 generation ago now, the world has changed for the better. One of the jokes about Once Were Warriors at the time was "is this a movie or documentary". I saw the after effects of one such bashing Once Were Warriors style in 1996 when I was 17 was the last time I saw something like that (and I had to ring 111, rake handle was used on a couple).


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 29, 2019)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> I always wanted to have a sequel to the original Ghostbusters movies.
> 
> While "The Real Ghostbusters" cartoon continued the stories (and some of the episodes were very good too), a live action film sequel is always the best.
> 
> ...




For the most part until this movie comes along The Ghostbuster's video game is/was considered the third movie in conjunction with 1 and 2.


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 29, 2019)

I've always wondered why people focus this criticism on the 80's 

maybe its a British thing but does anyone remember the Carry On movies? starting in 1958 with Carry On Nurse and ranging right up to 1992 - they're all bowdlerized tiddy comedies and if anything exemplified rape culture its them

While it doesnt justify 'rape culture' in anyway, if you go back far enough then Chaucer and before him Aristophanes were also creating plays and works full of sexual innuendo and :tiddys too


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 29, 2019)

Tonguez said:


> I've always wondered why people focus this criticism on the 80's
> 
> maybe its a British thing but does anyone remember the Carry On movies? starting in 1958 with Carry On Nurse and ranging right up to 1992 - they're all bowdlerized tiddy comedies and if anything exemplified rape culture its them
> 
> While it doesnt justify 'rape culture' in anyway, if you go back far enough then Chaucer and before him Aristophanes were also creating plays and works full of sexual innuendo and :tiddys too




80's kids were the first to use the internet en masse and the 80s were when things like blockbusters bbwcame big. Basically after Jaws and Star Wars in the 70s. Home computers as well.

 80s was also video games becoming mainstream.  It's the foundation of modern pop culture. My older brother and sister for example are not gamers I got an Atari 83 or so.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 29, 2019)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> I always wanted to have a sequel to the original Ghostbusters movies.
> 
> While "The Real Ghostbusters" cartoon continued the stories (and some of the episodes were very good too), a live action film sequel is always the best.
> 
> ...




I want to see future movies build more on the mythos, and create mythos their own. But that would take talented writers and a minimum of effort.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 29, 2019)

You absolutely make a point. Heck, The Honeymooners had the threat of domestic violence as one of their recurring jokes.

I think the reason the 80s get singled out is that it was right when the idea that this isn’t okay was starting to finally hit mainstream culture, so you had both the past and the future existing uneasily together.



Tonguez said:


> I've always wondered why people focus this criticism on the 80's
> 
> maybe its a British thing but does anyone remember the Carry On movies? starting in 1958 with Carry On Nurse and ranging right up to 1992 - they're all bowdlerized tiddy comedies and if anything exemplified rape culture its them
> 
> While it doesnt justify 'rape culture' in anyway, if you go back far enough then Chaucer and before him Aristophanes were also creating plays and works full of sexual innuendo and :tiddys too


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 29, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Feb 3, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> E. The reason that they are getting attention is because these ( h/t @_*Zardnaar*_ ) are often the foundations to a lot of "nerd culture" and the people who grew up consuming it are now in charge of making and approving culture today, not to mention that a lot of people are discussing it, and some people feel protective about it.
> 
> F. That protective issue is hard to grapple with. A lot of people feel personally invested in this, as if pointing out that there are ... well, issues with things in childhood somehow means that they, themselves, have the same issues. Which isn't the case!




The 80s were formative culture for people who are now coming into middle age, and most of nerd culture.  And this board is loaded with?  Nerds coming into being middle aged.  Go figure the issues of the 80s would be highlighted.

In addition, in this particular case, the original movie had issues, and some responses to the 2016 movie... failed to show how well we'd improved on those issues over the intervening decades.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 4, 2019)

Umbran said:


> the original movie had issues, and some responses to the 2016 movie... failed to show how well we'd improved on those issues over the intervening decades.




I don't think that is as important as the movie just being a good follow up the original Ghostbusters movies... which it wasn't. I also don't think these sorts of issues should be (ab)used to deflect genuine criticism of the movie.


----------



## Eltab (Feb 8, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> to deflect genuine criticism of the movie.



In the original thread on the most recent GB movie, I predicted it would not be as good as the original, based on the cast working together before (or not).  
My comment disappeared without a trace or reply.


----------



## oni no won (Feb 13, 2019)

I did not bother watching the all female version of ghostbusters because it just felt like they were just banking on the trend of switching gender and/or race.  I heard it sucked.  However, I like that this upcoming movie is a next generation thing where the things that happened in the 80's movie version had come to pass in this upcoming iteration.


----------



## Eltab (Feb 13, 2019)

oni no won said:


> I like that this upcoming movie is a next generation thing where the things that happened in the 80's movie version had come to pass in this upcoming iteration.



One possible opening hook is that Sigorney Weaver's child (daughter? I forget) has "ghost radar", knows that spooks were empowered during her conception … and has no idea what to do - or how to feel - about the fact that she is therefore 'special'.  As the camera begins showing events, a spook oozes out of the wall and looks around her apartment's living room.

The early part of the movie is her trying to find Mom - and then the original Ghostbusters - to get answers.  Somebody (Dan Ackroyd?) gives her now-sadly-departed Egon's equipment and a thick sheaf of notes, and 'commissions' her in the business.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 13, 2019)

New Ghostbusters movie staring teens with attitude taking over for the original Ghostbusters?
So...
[video=youtube_share;DEpCUB8IjzM]https://youtu.be/DEpCUB8IjzM[/video]


----------



## trappedslider (Jun 11, 2019)

And it looks like the most of the OG cast are set to return https://tinyurl.com/y2qnrs5q


----------



## Istbor (Jun 17, 2019)

My only beef with 2016 movie, was that they didn't continue with the story. 

This new announcement fills me with some hope, but not a ton.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 18, 2019)

While I'm excited to hear that the old cast is returning (or at least, those that are still alive), my common sense is screaming that this is a bad idea. Maybe it is the Indy 4 syndrome.


----------

