Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4884882
I've talked a bit about this previously but I thought a topic on it might yield an interesting discussion. One of the reason's GB2016 didn't work for me was because it was really trying too hard to be funny. Every character had quips and the improv felt very forced & obvious. When I was a kid, I had zero idea that Ghostbusters was a comedy. I just thought it was a fun action movie where Ghosts get busted. It wasn't until I was a bit older that some of the jokes started to land. With that being said, Ghostbusters is a very dry comedy. For the most part, the humour comes from the characters. We've all heard stories of how there was a ton of improv on the set of GB84 & yet it doesn't feel like improv in the modern sense of your typical Judd Apatow/Seth Rogen way(a good example of the obvious improv I'm talking about is in 40 year old Virigin and the "you wana know how I k now you're gay?" bit).

I would say there are more jokes in GB16 than in GB84(runtime isn't a factor I'm referring to). Yet the dialogue and jokes in GB84 are classics and very well known, even among non hardcore GB fans. "back off man, I'm a scientist" or "listen! Do you smell something" or "I collect spores, mould and fungus" are all memorable. In contrast GB16 has very jokey jokes(Chris Hemsworth and the telephone thing, the testing of the equipment when Mcarthy goes flying). The two films have very different style of humour. I still laugh at GB84 and I've seen it countless times. Will GB16, for those who thought it was funny, have that same quality?

If someone were to calculate the jokes per minute ratio, I'd think GB16 would come out on top. I think GB84 takes the material more seriously, hence my confusion as a kid(I'm not sure any kid would be confused that GB16 is suppose to be funny)
While also being a great comedy, one of the best of all time, GB84 works as a great sci fi action film. Take out all the comedy and I still think the movie would've been huge. When I see a GB film, I'm not just looking to laugh. I love the mythology. The pseudoscience. The techno babble. I'm interested in mystery of the villian and the case they are trying to solve. Was GB16 missing that angle? Was it trying too hard to be a comedy?
#4884908
For sure GB84 was a comedy because of the actors that were in it and the actors that they wanted in it initially.

I also felt that GB16 was trying too hard to be funny and certain lines were being forced. Other scenes seemed to run on too long. Some of the scenes they cut were even longer or were cringworthy.

It seemed like every actor in GB16 was a comedian and they were all allowed to try their own various improv lines.

In the extras you can see take after take after take with the actor trying different lines. That would be an editors nightmare.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4884914
I don't actually see GB84 as a comedy and never did. To me, it's a serious film with some people who quip. Even the most daft looking monster is terrifying to a child.

GB16 on the other hand is pun central. A very different kind of film. Not set in the "real world" but a place where everyone makes jokes all the time.

*disclaimer: I like GB16, but it's just a movie. GB84 feels like more.
JurorNo.2, devilmanozzy, Sav C and 1 others liked this
#4884927
They're both comedies in that they have leads characters who are far more deliberately and consistently witty than your average real life human being. ;) Just different styles of humor.

Ghostbusters by its nature is a hybrid comedy blockbuster, so it kind of exists in both worlds, but it's definitely a comedy. Dan Aykroyd (a comedian, btw, hehe) actually believe in ghosts, and he has always said Ghostbusters was just for fun. The humor is occasionally more deadpan in GB84 (though not only that) but that's simply a style of comedy, not the absence of it. A comedy is certainly capable of creating a rich universe, and even contain more serious moments when it needs to. (I'll agree that's something GB16 could have used more of. But I guess in 2016, we're still stuck in that post-modern mentality where too much sentimentality is considered lame.)

This question of whether Ghostbusters is a comedy or not reminds me of a friend of mine. He was very disillusioned to realize so many of his favorite cartoons as a kid were played for laughs. Like how Cobra Commander wasn't actually a bad ass, there was a lot of funny bits about how cowardly and ineffective he was as a leader. Very well crafted character actually, and yet that was all somehow ruined for my friend because he realized it wasn't to be taken entirely "seriously."
By BatDan
#4884965
Depends on what your 'taste' is.

Personally, i always found it as a comedy with elements of other genres. and as a i got older, one of the most intelligent comedies of all time.

It was always intended as a comedy: the director; Ivan Reitman, the writers; Ramis, Aykroyd, its star; Bill Murray." all comedians. But like i said, all depends on how you view it and what your taste is.

As a kid and as an adult i loved B-movie/Cult films, everything from Evil Dead to Re-Animator, and i always felt Ghostbusters worked inside the niche with this genre; the campy horror-comedies movies of the 80s (just happened to be one with a much bigger budget) but it also had its other leg in the Stripes/Animal House type-comedies.

But since its such a diverse film, and you dont find the campy stuff in it, "Funny", you're still entertained by the well-crafted filmmaking of it.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4884974
GB84 felt like a serious film with comedic undertones, and it worked.

GB2016 reminded me of the kinds of films I used to make with my friends in High School, we used outlines and no actual script. We just ad-libbed everything and see what stuck. The deleted scenes in the blu-ray makes it very hard to imagine that they did not use that method.
#4884978
Just a quick clarification: both Ghostbusters films are obviously comedies. The question wasn't whether or not Ghostbusters is a comedy, the question is which is more OVERTLY a comedy. I noticed GB16 to be a less serious more jokey type of film. Even though GB84 is far superior & actually funny(in my opinion anyways. Expierence may vary). As a little kid, I had no idea GB84 was a comedy since the jokes went over my head. Lines like "symmetrical Book stacking, just like the Philadelphia Mass turbulence of 1947" "you're right, no human beings would stack books like this" just didn't register for me as a kid.
#4884981
Seemed less of a comedy on paper, and then they tried to make it funny. I think the 2016 would have better been made and edited not worrying about the comedy label. Some points in the film were deleted to make room for jokes which added to the jarring nature of it. In all honesty, adding back in deleted scene "Breaking Up" and trimming the kevin "Mike Hat" interview would have made a world of difference. I honestly think that the added character interaction would have grounded the film more, and shown the inner struggle Erin was going through. Less lines, more story/plot.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4884986
It's tough, I think the comedy in Answer the Call is more overt, yes, but I think if you look closer Ghostbusters is less serious. Everything about Ghostbusters is presented in a dry/deadpan way, from the characters, to the ghost designs and special effects, to the set design, to Ecto-1, to the fact that they get an army escort (although they didn't have an escort in Ghostbusters II.)

Answer the Call is more of a SciFi movie under the hood. The characters are what make it a comedy. There isn't much variation between the designs of the ghosts, many of them are either green or blue and glowing. The proton streams look a bit too clean and the movement is too predictable for them to be jokes. The Ecto-1 isn't given enough attention to be developed into a joke. Not to mention people do get beat up.

What I'm trying to say is that Ghostbusters has many silly things presented in a serious way, whereas in Answer the call only the serious stuff is really presented in a serious way. I don't know, does that even make sense?
#4884987
Sav C wrote:It's tough, I think the comedy in Answer the Call is more overt, yes, but I think if you look closer Ghostbusters is less serious. Everything about Ghostbusters is presented in a dry/deadpan way, from the characters, to the ghost designs and special effects, to the set design, to Ecto-1, to the fact that they get an army escort (although they didn't have an escort in Ghostbusters II.)

Answer the Call is more of a SciFi movie under the hood. The characters are what make it a comedy. There isn't much variation between the designs of the ghosts, many of them are either green or blue and glowing. The proton streams look a bit too clean and the movement is too predictable for them to be jokes. The Ecto-1 isn't given enough attention to be developed into a joke. Not to mention people do get beat up.

What I'm trying to say is that Ghostbusters has many silly things presented in a serious way, whereas in Answer the call only the serious stuff is really presented in a serious way. I don't know, does that even make sense?
Hmm an interesting thought. I do disagree however. I can't think of one scene in GB16 as serious or scary as the Dana arms thru chair sequence or the eggs cooking on counter. The music is dramatic, the camera is static and the acting is great. Take even the opening scene of both films. How many jokes are used that defuse the tension in GB16? The opening library scene in GB84 is literally silent. No dialogue. The suspense builds, slowly. Again, the music is dramatic. The camera moves are swift and Scorcesse like. The framing suggests claustrophobia. I get none of that thought or drama from GB16(which isn't to say there aren't serious or scary scenes. I just don't think they work as well. Again, expierences may vary).

Take the first scene with a laugh in GB84, our introduction to Venkman. It's very comical and yet there is a serious drama with the male participant. He yells and screams in a very realistic manner. It's not over the top and the character makes no quips. The audience is in on Venkmans scheme, which makes it funny. But the character doesn't know he's in a comedy film, if that makes sense.

A good way, for me at least, at describing the two films: one of the films feels like the characters know they are in a comedy, the other feels like the characters are in the real world reacting to what's happening. At least for me, that's how it feels. Depending on how you like your comedy, each version has its merit.
Sav C, seekandannoy liked this
#4885020
While I agree GB:ATC has more jokes and a different comedic style when compared to the GB:ATC I don't feel I would not go that far to presume the characters are in on the joke.
For me that would include fourth wall breaking, but for the rest, yeah it's a different, less dry kind of humor.

Tensionwise GB:ATC uses a slightly different set up with a longer intro, they also use the intro to give Gertrude some backstory, but I think people are comparing the movie a little too much with just the original.
Don't forget there was also a GB2 and multiple cartoon shows (which McCarthy was a huge fan of) whom were probably used as well for the inspiration in creating the new movie.
Now I don't assume Dippold and Feig have seen every cartoon or comic before they started, but I believe they set the lighter tone more towards the cartoons then just copying the original movie.

That being said, there are some genuinely scary scenes in there, with the ghost being much more dangerous and physical towards the characters.
When Garret gets thrown around that is quite a big shocker and tone setter.
Last edited by Alphagaia on November 2nd, 2016, 6:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
#4885021
SpaceBallz wrote:GB84 felt like a serious film with comedic undertones, and it worked.

GB2016 reminded me of the kinds of films I used to make with my friends in High School, we used outlines and no actual script. We just ad-libbed everything and see what stuck. The deleted scenes in the blu-ray makes it very hard to imagine that they did not use that method.
This sounds about right. Did everyone see the outtake video of Kate McKinnon improvising most of her lines? Funny video. She's a legend in the making. But you could imagine the screenplay just said "Holtzmann and Yates have a funny scene here" and they made everything up on the day, whereas GB84 had more of a structure applied.

(not entirely of course. Still some famous improvisations in that as well)
#4885022
GBfan_CH wrote:
SpaceBallz wrote:GB84 felt like a serious film with comedic undertones, and it worked.

GB2016 reminded me of the kinds of films I used to make with my friends in High School, we used outlines and no actual script. We just ad-libbed everything and see what stuck. The deleted scenes in the blu-ray makes it very hard to imagine that they did not use that method.
This sounds about right. Did everyone see the outtake video of Kate McKinnon improvising most of her lines? Funny video. She's a legend in the making. But you could imagine the screenplay just said "Holtzmann and Yates have a funny scene here" and they made everything up on the day, whereas GB84 had more of a structure applied.

(not entirely of course. Still some famous improvisations in that as well)
Hmm, I don't think this is exactly the case. What would make much more sense is they do the scene like Dippold wrote untill Feig is happy with the performance, after which he allows a few takes with the actors spitballing a few variations.

What seems to be happening is he just lets them conclude the scene, after which he discusses what works and let them do it again to perfect it.

This gives you a lot of options when editing the movie. Try and invision the improv like one long scene, but a piece of paper you can cut parts out of to streamline the scene.

What we see in the making offs are just the scenes unedited, like the HS guy getting in the car. He was allowed to have a whole scene with him and his partner arguing about opening the door, but ultimately they only used a few bits of it.
#4885024
Alphagaia wrote:While I agree GB:ATC has more jokes and a different comedic style when compared to the GB:ATC I don't feel I would not go that far to presume the characters are in on the joke.
For me that would include fourth wall breaking, but for the rest, yeah it's a different, less dry kind of humor.

Tensionwise GB:ATC uses a slightly different set up with a longer intro, but I think people are comparing the movie a little too much with just the original. Don't forget there was also a sequel and a cartoon show (where Mc Carthy was a huge fan of) was used for the inspiration in creating the new movie. Now I don't assume Dippold and Feig have seen every cartoon or comic before they started, but I believe they set the lighter tone more towards the cartoons then just copying the original movie.

That being said, there are some genuinely scary scenes in there, with the ghost being much more dangerous and physical towards the characters.
When Garret gets thrown around that is quite a big shocker and tone setter.
Well both movies are called Ghostbusters so I think comparisons are inevitable and interesting to think about. They obviously are different in their approach and I think talking about those differences might help in discovering the true genius of the original, or where the reboot went wrong. Or (*clears throat*) Vice versa. Who knows?
The characters are not literally in on the joke, of course. I think you misunderstood what I meant. I was trying to define/examine the different types of comedy and that's a way to look at it(and given other posts here it feels like that might be a common sentiment shared). It *feels* as if they are, hence the none stop quips. It's like everyone of the characters is trying to be Venkman. McCarthy being a fan of the animated series is interesting but she didn't have any creative role in the film that I'm aware of. I do see similarities in the way the ghosts are designed in regards to the animated series but I think their main focus was the original film. I can't see Paul Feig being a Real Ghostbusters fan. Then again maybe he was, who knows?
#4885025
Hmm, I actually think no character was trying to be the Venkman. I can see bits of Ray and Egon in them, but no Venkman.
The intent was creating a different kind of comedic Quartet as people would just go, O thats supposed to be Venkman instead of looking at a new character.
Erin is the very opposite of Venkman for instance. She takes her work very seriously, is hugely insecure, and is very bad with interacting with people. Now, her quirks make her funny (opinons may vary) but just like the old GB, like Ray being gullable like a child, Egon being an emotionless computer, and Winston the straight man in the odd situation, they all had their own funny quirks. Just different ones.

Don't get me wrong, though: I do think we should compare it with the orginal, I just believe we should also look beyond that and see how it measures up to the entire franchise for the simple fact GB84 is not the only story in the GB franchise and tones and humor definitively varied. Even the tone between GB1 and GB2 is different.
MonaLS liked this
#4885028
It most definitely was. The original was obviously a comedy, but it was set in a (mostly) real world with real characters. The characters just happened to be funny people. They weren't joke characters. Every character in GB'16 was part of the joke. "Serious" characters like Dana, Walter Peck, Mayor Lenny etc would have been weirdly out of place in GB'16 where every one is in on the joke, including the equivalents of those characters. Like-wise, the bird flipping dean and Kevin (oh man, especially Kevin) would not have fit in with the original at all because they were just too unrealistic and one-note joke characters while the rest of the characters were fairly real.

Then there's the horror aspect. GB'84 obviously played up the horror far more than the new film. You had scenes like Ray and Winston driving around at night discussing revelations, no comedy at all, just spookiness and building atmosphere, the terror dog attacking Dana in her apartment etc. In the new film even the horror is mostly played for laughs.

I think the fact that the original film does have that tone of being a serious movie in the real world with funny but real characters facing surreal and crazy but still scary situations is exactly why the movie has endured, why people still like to dress up us Ghostbusters and join troops Etc. Its that realism. Comedies, and comedy characters, don't usually get that kind of mileage or become figures of wish fulfilment.
Last edited by Commander_Jim on November 2nd, 2016, 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
RichardLess, SpaceBallz liked this
#4885029
Alphagaia wrote:Hmm, I actually think no character was trying to be the Venkman. I can see bits of Ray and Egon in them, but no Venkman.
The very intent of them casting women was creating a different kind of comedic Quartet as people would just go, O thats supposed to be Venkman instead of looking at a new character.
Erin is the very opposite of Venkman for instance. She takes her work very seriously, is hugely insecure, and is very bad with interacting with people. Now, her quirks make her funny (opinons may vary) but just like the old GB, like Ray being gullable like a child, Egon being an emotionless computer, and Winston the straight man in the odd situation, they all had their own funny quirks. Just different ones.

Don't get me wrong, though: I do think we should compare it with the orginal, I just believe we should also look beyond that and see how it measures up to the entire franchise for the simple fact GB84 is not the only story in the GB franchise.
I knew I shouldn't have included the Venkman bit, thinking it would be taken the wrong way. What I mean by "trying to be Venkman" is that the characters are all trying to be funny. They make sarcastic asides, comment on what's happening with a joke. The characters aren't as defined in their role, which is fine is you enjoy that sort of thing. There was a clear delineation in GB84, Egon was the brain, Ray the heart, Venkman the mouth and Winston the penis, no err, the nose! No Winston was the left arm! No no that doesn't work either! Ha! I've got it! Winston was the soul! Yeah that's it! Anyways...
I can see how people would like all the characters making jokes, I just think the way it's set up in the original where the comedy comes from the characters rather than the actor. Winston isn't necessarily a funny guy but he gets some great lines none the less because that's what I believe his character would say "I have seen shit that turn you white" is delivered beautifully by a character trying to convince someone else that this is all real and happening.
The only character that felt clearly defined to me in GB16 was Holtzman. *that* is a character. All of her lines are within character.
Commander_Jim liked this
#4885055
Strangely enough I think the GB in GB:ATC are actually more defined and have way better backstory. I don't believe the problem lies in there.

Erin even has a character arc! Something the original movie did not contain at all.

All Erins actions are believable within my description already given above and her character arc has a well established beginning and end. She wants people to believe (in) her. In the end she finds the courage to stick up for her friends despite her obvious faults and be how she really is instead of how she thinks society wants her to be.

Abby tells you how it is. She is bossy, tenacious and overconfident in her abilities. For her the fun is the ride, not the result. She loves research and because of that, hardly has time for anything else. All of lines and actions stream from that.

Patty is passionate. She believes in the best of people and to do what's right. Like Egon she seems able to just spit out information. While she knows a lot, she is not actually that smart, easily spooked, and gets into situations without thinking of the consequences.

The majority of the jokes stream from those personality traits.

Trouble is, where in GB84 where almost every joke hit, GB:ATC has a few misfires that are there just to be a joke, where in GB84 it was more natural. You don't like the joke? No problem, the scene has other elements that further the story. GB:ATC has a few jokes that pause the narrative and if those fail to hit you have a problem.

I think that's the big difference between GB:ATC and GB84 in the joke department.
Last edited by Alphagaia on November 2nd, 2016, 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4885068
Alphagaia wrote:Erin even has a character arc! Something the original movie did not contain at all.
Oh sure it does, Peter learns how to date women his own age! :lol:
#4885082
Alphagaia wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Oh sure it does, Peter learns how to date women his own age! :lol:
Plottwist, Zuul never left Dana's Body.
Oh dear...
#4885085
Alphagaia wrote:Strangely enough I think the GB in GB:ATC are actually more defined and have way better backstory. I don't believe the problem lies in there.

Erin even has a character arc! Something the original movie did not contain at all.

All Erins actions are believable within my description already given above and her character arc has a well established beginning and end. She wants people to believe (in) her. In the end she finds the courage to stick up for her friends despite her obvious faults and be how she really is instead of how she thinks society wants her to be.

Abby tells you how it is. She is bossy, tenacious and overconfident in her abilities. For her the fun is the ride, not the result. She loves research and because of that, hardly has time for anything else. All of lines and actions stream from that.

Patty is passionate. She believes in the best of people and to do what's right. Like Egon she seems able to just spit out information. While she knows a lot, she is not actually that smart, easily spooked, and gets into situations without thinking of the consequences.

The majority of the jokes stream from those personality traits.

Trouble is, where in GB84 where almost every joke hit, GB:ATC has a few misfires that are there just to be a joke, where in GB84 it was more natural. You don't like the joke? No problem, the scene has other elements that further the story. GB:ATC has a few jokes that pause the narrative and if those fail to hit you have a problem.

I think that's the big difference between GB:ATC and GB84 in the joke department.
Both Back to the Future and Ghostbusters are famous examples of movies without character arc for the main character, this is true. Oddly enough both films are considered to have "perfect" scripts that are still taught in film school for how non traditional and rule breaking they both are. It's interesting you mention the character arc because that is actually considered a strength of the movie.
Honestly? A lot of what you are describing in the characters are more trope than trait. But that's just me. (Experience may vary)
Here's an interesting challenge. Do you think you could name me two jokes from GB16 from each of the characters you mentioned that you think exemplifies their character. Something akin to "I collect spores mould and fungus" or "well this is great! If the ionization rate is constant for all ectoplasmic entities, we could really bust some heads! ..In a spiritual sense of course". If you can't do it's not like that will prove anything since this is all opinion based and you have your own likes/dislikes. I'm just curious. You also may not have seen the movie enough yet to have a good handle on some of the jokes, which are admittedly pretty rapid fire.
#4885093
Honestly I could care less about Erin being picked on as a little girl for seeing a ghost and being called "ghost girl" as a character arc. Same would have applied to Spengler or Ray. What I enjoyed in the original was that these guys were introduced as three scientists and we knew their character types right away, then we go on the journey with them discovering ghosts and what exactly is going on in NYC. I don't want to know Louis's backstory or how many times Dana had to order chinese food because they kept messing up the order.
savintheday liked this
#4885105
Is the reboot more overtly a comedy than Ghostbusters?

Who in the HELL can't tell that the obvious answer is YES?

Seriously this shouldn't even be up for a discussion.
pferreira1983 liked this
#4885129
RichardLess wrote:[Here's an interesting challenge. Do you think you could name me two jokes from GB16 from each of the characters you mentioned that you think exemplifies their character. Something akin to "I collect spores mould and fungus" or "well this is great! If the ionization rate is constant for all ectoplasmic entities, we could really bust some heads! ..In a spiritual sense of course"
I keep getting newfound respect for just how well written that first movie was. The humour for each character was so distinct and different (and perfectly suited to each actor) . Between Peter, Ray, Egon, Winston and Louis you have five totally different types of personality and humor and yet each played perfectly against eachother.

I dont think the new film did too badly at distinct characters, but when it came to humour it was all the same kind of jokes throughout. I guess Hotzmann was the obvious standout.
#4885301
I don't agree to full extent as some of the jokes are devided between them, and befitting to their personalities.
I can remember Abby being the one babbling about all thedead serious different ghost types, with a few great descriptions, Erin being the translator of those but wanting fancy names like 'conductorofthmetaphysicalexamination' wanting to impress and awe, while Abby goes with a simple Ghostbusters.
'room full of nightmares' is another memorable one, and befitting Patties angst of the spooks, and ofcourse the 'president is a plant' come to mind!

We have planned a GBnight this Sunday with all three movies and various snacks, so I will make some notes to see if there are more memorable jokes that only fit one GBs personality! At least there are 4 quotes here.
#4885328
I mentioned this in my review for the movie. The original was a combination of sci-fi fantasy, horror and comedy. The comedy in the original film worked because the characters weren't in on the joke. They played it serious and it wasn't self aware. The problem with the comedy in the new movie is that everyone is in on the joke. Part of the problem is that the new film conforms to the style of self aware comedy of today. Some people enjoy that, I find it tiring after a while. Sitcoms are like that now as well compared to post 2000s. Post 2000 sitcoms were done well because they could be funny yet also have dramatic, serious moments. Now everyone in comedies are delivering punchlines and zingers. It's the difference between The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and The Big Bang Theory. As the original set a standard of how the humour in a GB movie should be handled some fans like myself take issue with the comedy in the new movie. The new movie just isn't played straight. You can still have fun and play it straight, the original had heartwarming and dramatic moments.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4885742
RichardLess wrote:Hmm an interesting thought. I do disagree however. I can't think of one scene in GB16 as serious or scary as the Dana arms thru chair sequence or the eggs cooking on counter. The music is dramatic, the camera is static and the acting is great. Take even the opening scene of both films. How many jokes are used that defuse the tension in GB16? The opening library scene in GB84 is literally silent. No dialogue. The suspense builds, slowly. Again, the music is dramatic. The camera moves are swift and Scorcesse like. The framing suggests claustrophobia. I get none of that thought or drama from GB16(which isn't to say there aren't serious or scary scenes. I just don't think they work as well. Again, expierences may vary).
Some good points. I suppose my theory was too general in its scope, although I think that the eggs frying on the counter fit into it (along with the terror dog in the refrigerator.) The juxtaposing simply is funny.

The reboot's horror elements, at least the opening scene, worked well for me, although I suppose they were a little cliche at times. For instance the tour guide runs into the mysteriously open door that's been locked for decades (granted there was stuff like that in The Birds also, and that was a Hitchcock film.) Ivan Reitman really knew how to handle the horror elements in the original, that's for sure.
Alphagaia wrote:While I agree GB:ATC has more jokes and a different comedic style when compared to the GB:ATC I don't feel I would not go that far to presume the characters are in on the joke.
For me that would include fourth wall breaking, but for the rest, yeah it's a different, less dry kind of humor.
Yeah, I agree. To be honest I find that in reality some people have such wide ranges of humor that both the original and the reboot feel like they could be true to real people's personalities.
Alphagaia wrote:
GBfan_CH wrote:
This sounds about right. Did everyone see the outtake video of Kate McKinnon improvising most of her lines? Funny video. She's a legend in the making. But you could imagine the screenplay just said "Holtzmann and Yates have a funny scene here" and they made everything up on the day, whereas GB84 had more of a structure applied.

(not entirely of course. Still some famous improvisations in that as well)
Hmm, I don't think this is exactly the case. What would make much more sense is they do the scene like Dippold wrote untill Feig is happy with the performance, after which he allows a few takes with the actors spitballing a few variations.

What seems to be happening is he just lets them conclude the scene, after which he discusses what works and let them do it again to perfect it.
I recall Reitman saying that he has the actors play the scene out exactly as written until he's got a take he's happy with, and then shoots another take where he let's the actors improvise to their heart's content. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Feig (and others) also employs this method.
RichardLess wrote:Both Back to the Future and Ghostbusters are famous examples of movies without character arc for the main character, this is true. Oddly enough both films are considered to have "perfect" scripts that are still taught in film school for how non traditional and rule breaking they both are. It's interesting you mention the character arc because that is actually considered a strength of the movie.
I've always been curious about how crucial character arcs are to a good story. I mean, do people really change? I think some do, but some people just don't change if you ask me.
SpaceBallz wrote:Honestly I could care less about Erin being picked on as a little girl for seeing a ghost and being called "ghost girl" as a character arc. Same would have applied to Spengler or Ray. What I enjoyed in the original was that these guys were introduced as three scientists and we knew their character types right away, then we go on the journey with them discovering ghosts and what exactly is going on in NYC. I don't want to know Louis's backstory or how many times Dana had to order chinese food because they kept messing up the order.
There really aren't any hard and fast rules to this kind of stuff, so while I pretty much prefer the way Ghostbusters handles the characters over any other film, the reboot's approach was completely legit. I liked it a lot to be honest.
Last edited by Sav C on December 6th, 2016, 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By Sister
#4885746
Huh, I see both as comedies, but the original is maybe a bit more Red Dwarf, and the reboot is more Psych. So, somewhat different stylistically, but both still comedic at heart.
Last edited by Sister on November 18th, 2016, 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JurorNo.2, Sav C, Kingpin liked this
#4885751
Sav C wrote:I've always been curious about how crucial character arcs are to a good story. I mean, do people really change? I think some do, but some people just don't change if you ask me.
I think people change, but in real life it's a much more gradual process, because our lives (ideally) last longer than an hour and a half. ;)
Sav C, Kingpin liked this

My Little Pony/Ghostbusters crossover done by my d[…]

Great work identifying the RS Temperature Control […]

I read Back in Town #1. Spoilers : Hate to b[…]

I'd really like to see the new t-shirt unlocks tra[…]