Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Funny Thing About Ghostbusters

In watching the original as preparation for the horror of the reboot.  I noticed something that I hadn't before.

There weren't that many ghosts in it.  The Librarian was about it.  You can't really tell if Slimer had ever been human or not.

Ghostbusters (1984) was primarily about defeating something close to  Cthulu.

Dan Aykroyd's influence I suppose.

4 comments:

gnossoss said...

It's kind of bizarre that the film works so well. When you think about the structure it doesn't seem like fighting an other-dimensional god should fit at all, it should feel really weird and forced.

With such a clever premise you'd think they'd focus on it, but really they end up contending with the supernatural in general rather than focusing on ghosts. Actually the cartoon show delivers on the ghost-busting premise a lot more than the movies do.

The first film actually works a little like A New Hope, in that you start really small (a ghost in a library that moves some books around, a kid looking for a droid that wandered off) and you end up really huge (saving the city [world?] from destruction by an extradimensional monster god, destroying a planet-annihilating weapon and defeating a totalitarian empire that spans much of the galaxy). It's amazing how smoothly the film escalates in scale without the audience really noticing.

It's also a lost art, having the characters in the film believe in the threat. The ghosts are almost scary enough for a horror movie, and Stay-puft really rides the line between scary and silly beautifully. The concept is silly, but it's played so straight that you actually feel like this thing is scary.

I'll enjoy the review if you subject yourself to the new film, but I wouldn't force that on anyone. Don't feel like you have to.

Cataline Sergius said...

What's more amazing is how far wrong they got the second movie. Yes there were individual jokes that make you laugh but the whole of the film is completely hollow.

They basically did a shot by shot rehash of the original. Pretty much every scene in Ghostbusters 2 has an analog in Ghostbusters.

It's a text book example of how not to make a sequel.

gnossoss said...

I will say one thing for the new movie. In the 1984 movie, the giant lumbering bloated creature was white. So flipping that was a bit clever.

gnossoss said...

Now that you mention it, Ghostbusters 2 is the precursor to The Force Awakens. They're both practically shot-for-shot remakes, only dumber than the originals. And they take characters who have progressed through an arc and reset them to where they originally started at the start of the new movie, even though it makes no sense to go back there from where they ended the last movie.

I can't hate Ghostbusters 2. They did try to come up with some new ideas, but unfortunately they reused the structure way too much (and the slime thing just wasn't all that interesting). Having nobody seem to remember that they saved everyone is hard to forgive, and it was a mistake to have a comedic villain. It's a shame they never made a real third film (though I should try the video game sometime, a lot of people have said it's pretty close to a third movie).