Would you be for or against a Ghostbusters 2 Special Edition? If for, what you would like to see done?

[Egon Spengler]

I've been looking at the film a bit closer. Theres a scene where the Ecto1A leaves the firehouse and you can clearly see the inside is empty of everything that should be in it. Also, the look of Slimer in the film, to be honest needs updated to be more true to the look of the 84 film. I'm all about going back in and fixing that. What else would you update? Would you be for a special edition? I know I would.

 

[nickytea]

If it gets a new score, yes.

 

[batguy]

I know that firehouse shot you're talking about. Yep, it needs fixing.

Slimer's look is probably the most glaring issue.

As for the rest of it, I dunno. My beefs with GB2 are mostly deeper issues that CGI tweaks wouldn't fix. The soundtrack has not aged well. Jeanine's character was not maintained.

And it's not plausible for the courts & public to blame the Ghostbusters for all the events of GB1. Every movie after 1984 can keep sticking to that story but I'm still not buying it. They need to explain how the entire human race forgot about a giant marshmallow man. (And if GB2 is cannon then the Statue of Liberty walked too.)


Setting the deeper issues aside, I think GB2 only needs a few minor visual tweaks.

But that's how I feel about most pre-CGI flicks. At least the ones with VFX/practical/stunt work. Most of them have a few rickety shots.

 

[Bloop]

I agree about the score. It really misses Elmer Berstein's themes from the first film, and should've also included "Cleanin' Up The Town," by The Bus Boys. That would've dramatically changed the film and made it feel more like the 1st one. I've toyed with the idea of doing my own fanedit if the film, redoing the score with those changes, but it's a pretty big undertaking for something that would probably end up being viewed just by me.

I also disliked the new Ghostbusters II logo, the "peace sign/two finger" ghost. I did a couple tests of trying to replace the logo on the jumpsuits and on Ecto 1A (also tried cleaning up the overall look of it, removing the "caution tape" paint and as much extra stuff as I could), but again, it would be a big job, and would need better digital skills/tools than I have.

 

[batguy]

I agree about the #2 logos. That was a bit of a 4th-wall-break. It was fine for marketing the movie but it should have not have replaced the original logo in-universe.

As for the Ecto-1s, I never liked most of the 1A changes. It reeked of clumsily changing stuff just for the sake of it.

 

[Bloop]

I agree about the #2 logos. That was a bit of a 4th-wall-break. It was fine for marketing the movie but it should have not have replaced the original logo in-universe.

As for the Ecto-1s, I never liked most of the 1A changes. It reeked of clumsily changing stuff just for the sake of it.

I wonder if the Ecto 1A was simply changed for the toys, adding as many bells & whistles as they could for kids. I think someone in one of the threads about Afterlife or Frozen Empire mentioned that they tried to make GB 2 more like The Real Ghostbusters cartoon. I don't know if that's true, but I can see it.

 

[batguy]

I wonder if the Ecto 1A was simply changed for the toys, adding as many bells & whistles as they could for kids. I think someone in one of the threads about Afterlife or Frozen Empire mentioned that they tried to make GB 2 more like The Real Ghostbusters cartoon. I don't know if that's true, but I can see it.

There's a feeling that the RGB cartoon influenced GB2. But I think it's more of a general tonal thing than specifics.

When you watch GB1 with fresh eyes, it had some scary stuff and a pretty adult mojo in general. That movie was only a few jokes & cuss words away from being R-rated.

GB2 was a notch softer all around. It's debatable how much is from the cartoon vs the creative direction of the cast in general. Everybody tends to start off R-rated in their youth and then drift towards a softer direction. Compare the dubious Indiana Jones character in the early drafts of 'Raiders' versus the lovable guy in 'Last Crusade'. Compare 'The Blues Brothers' to Dan Ackroyd's characters a decade later.

Heck, even the real-life city of NYC (which is pretty much a character in GB) was changing. The first GB movie was full of early SNL veterans and it still had a lot of the rougher mojo of 1970s New York. By 1989 the city was a safer & cleaner place.

 

[torren_of_amber]

I remember reading that there was huge issues with thr scripts for the second one and that's why it took so long to get made. And if my memory holds true, the studio may have been a big part of the script issues. But, the studios getting involved in the movie has really effected movies before and likely will continue.

 

[batguy]

I remember hearing that GB2 came together 5 years later because all the big names finally had free time in their schedules for it. Ackroyd & Murray & Ramis & Weaver & Reitman & Moranis . . . they were all in peak demand in the mid/late 1980s.


We might have gotten a (different) 4th Indiana Jones movie much earlier if it wasn't for all the big players being so booked up. Ford, Connery, Lucas, Speilberg, Frank Marshall, etc. It wasn't gonna happen right after 'Last Crusade' but I think by the later 1990s Lucas & Speilberg were starting to warm up on it again. Ford was always willing to do it and Connery was probably still game until the early 2000s.

The 'War of the Worlds' remake (2005?) happened because Tom Cruise & Spielberg both had a few months of open schedule at the same time. The movie was totally slammed together around it.

 

[jock123]

It was fine for marketing the movie but it should have not have replaced the original logo in-universe.

Wasn’t there to have been an in-universe explanation, which either never got filmed or was cut, in which it was to have been part of re-branding the Ghostbusters as “twice as good” or some-such, to try and help them improve their image after the first movie?

 

[Bloop]

Wasn’t there to have been an in-universe explanation, which either never got filmed or was cut, in which it was to have been part of re-branding the Ghostbusters as “twice as good” or some-such, to try and help them improve their image after the first movie?

I hadn't heard about that, but it seems like a poor in-world excuse. Another problem with the logo is that it really doesn't make sense for their business. The original is a surprised/scared ghost with the prohibition circle & line like it's banned, meaning "no ghosts allowed." That makes sense, as their business is eradicating ghosts - basically, they're ghost exterminators. Why would the banned ghost in the second logo be smiling and throwing up the peace sign? Historically, the two fingers also was used to symbolize "V" for victory, so it also fails on that front.

I know I'm overanalyzing it, but any in-world explanation is just trying to explain a poor marketing decision. I suppose we could just chalk it up to the guys not being good at business decisions, but it's a bad logo.

 

[Lightning]

Wasn’t there to have been an in-universe explanation, which either never got filmed or was cut, in which it was to have been part of re-branding the Ghostbusters as “twice as good” or some-such, to try and help them improve their image after the first movie?

the uncut in universe commercial:

 

[Halliwax]

I’d like to see the completed scene of Ray being possessed by vigo while driving the ecto…

We get a good clip of this during the Pizza Hut commercial

 

[JediMichael]

I saw a few weeks ago something interesting, was going to post here, forgot, then got completely sidetracked.
The thought of having the Ghost logo making a 2 with its fingers. Does that break the 4th wall of it being a sequel, since they have it plastered on the car and building.
I saw a theory, I believe from Reddit, where someone had a cool, what if, idea. And that is, what if, now that the Ghostbusters are officially back in business, fighting ghosts again, that something like a TV channel were helping sponsor them, and happens to be, Channel 2.
Of course the movie never says that, so mostly just a fan thought, but, one that could work in a way, so to help out their sponsor, they put a 2, on everything....but over the years, like with anything, that sponsorship ends, so they end up just going back to their original logo.
I'd say thats at least better than making it feel like a sequel, since for them, its not a movie.

As far as fixing up stuff in the actual movie, sure, why not.
Despite its flaws, I enjoy the movie. Some cool songs, like the higher and higher with the Statue of Liberty scene.
I kind of wish they had used the Statue to help fight the bad guy, not just break into the top of the building. But, that might have been more tricky in 1989....I sure they were already pushing the limits with some of those effects.