Movie Club Week 1 - Ghostbusters

WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE FIRST DISCUSSION THREAD OF THE NEW MOVIE CLUB, DESIGNED TO RUN PARALLEL WITH R.O.C.K.S.
A big thanks to everyone that are joining us through all of this. It’s going to be an enjoyable ride!

We're starting off with something that should be familiar to everyone, the original 1984 Ghostbusters!

Just a friendly reminder to everyone that, whilst fans are obviously welcome to passionately discuss and give their views on these episodes, please remember to keep things on a friendly footing and respect your fellow posters.
Also, please do not post where or how to find the full movie online. And do not post asking others to PM it to you. You are however allowed to watch the movie in whatever manner you want.

You had to pick my one of my all time favorite movies. I was given this movie at Christmas when released and watched multiple times a day. After about 1,746 or so give or take a few the vhs tape stopped playing properly.
I found this movie most enjoyable for they really researched the paranormal. Which was no surprise since Dan Aykroyd had a fascination with it. How they came up with the technology to do some of these scenes were unbelievable for 1984. My favorite scene has always been the one towards the end where stay-puft is rampaging the streets and steps on the church. "Nobody steps on a church in my town!" Classic! The lines they came up with for some of the scenes made me think as I got older they had done on the spot for the fact that is so darn funny.

I would have also loved to have seen the original script done with john belushi as planned before his passing. Paul Reubens as Ivo Shandor would have been interesting as planned too.

I could go all day talking about this movie. It was so awesome back then and still is today.

I saw Ghostbusters quite late in life so I don't have as much nostalgia for it as I do for other movies of that time period. Nevertheless it is an extremely enjoyable movie, even when watched today.

I don't consider GB a comedy movie, even though others may disagree with me. For me it is a horror movie with a good amount of humor. That does not make it a comedy, just as "Iron Man" or "The Avengers" aren't comedies. The great thing about GB is that the writers did not stick funny scenes/dialogue at random points in the script. All the humor (most of which is courtesy of Peter Venkman) is inextricably and smoothly blended into the story so that it flows very naturally.

The scary parts are quite scary. Sure the effects do seem dated in places, especially the hell hounds. But Slimer still looks amazing even today. I find that the non-ghost parts (like the books swapping by themselves) were eerier than the scenes with the actual ghosts.

The characters are all likeable and immediately stick in your head. Egon the stoic scientist, Ray the over enthusiastic manchild scientist, Peter the wisecracking take it easy guy, and Winston the everyman. Sigourney Weaver is great in her role, but I've never been too big a fan of Rick Moranis. I feel that perhaps a less comedic actor in that role would have been better. The Ghostbusters and especially Bill Murray are pretty much sufficient to provide all the necessary humor. I think it was a bit of overkill to throw Moranis in the mix as well.

In conclusion, a great and very entertaining movie!

I grew up watching The Real Ghostbuters cartoon. I didn't discover the movie until I was about 5 or 6. I really liked it and the sequel but I was more into the cartoon.
Years later I really learned to appreciate how brilliant this movie is.
The writing and characters in this movie are so great. We learn so much about the characters and really connect to them.
There are so many great scenes in this movie it's hard to pick one. I like the library scene, them moving into the fire house and their first job at the hotel.

I completely agree with Wilycub this is a horror movie with quite a lot of well placed humour.

I wonder how this movie would have turned out with John Belushi as Venkman and Eddie Murphy and Winston.

This is the first time I have seen this movie since seeing the awful reboot. What a stark contrast between the two.
Interestingly enough when they are going into business for themselves coming out of the bank, Peter mentions how they could make a fortune on the franchise rights. That's what the 2016 movie should have been instead of a reboot. Just some women working at another branch of the Ghostbusters in another city...with an original script idea.

All I can really say is it's a classic and a wonderful movie. :D

"Mark M, post: 116392, member: 5058" said:

I grew up watching The Real Ghostbuters cartoon. I didn't discover the movie until I was about 5 or 6. I really liked it and the sequel but I was more into the cartoon.

That's pretty much the same case with me. Though I discovered the movies when I was around 12 or 13. :biggrin Even though I only had a few episodes of "The Real Ghostbusters" on VHS, I used to love them and watched them over and over again. I am planning on watching more of them. Maybe we should do a rewatch of that cartoon in our R.O.C.K.S. thread?

"Wilycub, post: 116398, member: 25043" said:

That's pretty much the same case with me. Though I discovered the movies when I was around 12 or 13. :biggrin Even though I only had a few episodes of "The Real Ghostbusters" on VHS, I used to love them and watched them over and over again. I am planning on watching more of them. Maybe we should do a rewatch of that cartoon in our R.O.C.K.S. thread?

I watched the cartoon regularly on TV when I was younger and even watched it in my teens when it was repeated on some stations here.
Sounds good to me. Still over 50% of the episodes I haven't seen. Maybe even a couple episodes of Extreme Ghostbusters. :)

No doubt about it, Ghostbusters is a classic.
I got the two films on VHS back in about 2003 and on DVD only last year. I wanted something to watch after an operation, and decided it was time to get it.

The four characters play off each other very well indeed. The plot is properly linear and follows a logical course. It all makes sense. Egon is very much the brains of this outfit, Ray the eager-but-not-too-bright occult expert and Peter the one who isn't really that into the scientific side but provides a useful contact point with the public. On the face of it, you wonder why he's there when he's not that fussed about the principle, but the team needed him as a point of accessibility with the public. He's the most easily approachable of the initial three.

Which brings me onto Winston. The one mistake this film made was not introducing his character earlier. As it is he doesn't appear until he comes in answer to the job advert about which we knew nothing until that moment. (It's the one thing that the reboot does better, but that's going off on a tangent!) He provides another point of accessibility. This is inevitable given that his function is essentially "cabbagehead" - as in, someone who doesn't know what something is about so that the other characters can explain things to the audience.

The other main characters are good too. Janine is surprisingly well-rounded, and her crush on Egon is very well done. He doesn't really understand this! Dana Barrett is very believable too. She's not mad, she's not stupid, she's a real, rational person who has a problem that can't be explained rationally. Louis Tully is really the comic relief. He keeps getting locked out of his apartment, and nobody takes him seriously. The obvious cliche would have been for him to ultimately become Gozer rather than just "the Keymaster", but they refrained from going down that alley. Although exactly why that spectral hound needed to possess the two of them in turn and make them, er . . . do what they did to, er . . . open the gateway, as it were, is unspecified.

And Walter Peck, the EPA man, is perfectly plausible. It's perfectly natural that there would be environmental concerns about what the Ghostbusters were doing, and Peck expresses these concerns in a very understandable and reasonable manner initially. He possibly over-reacts a tad by bringing in the policeman and technician to shut the grid off so soon (perhaps another encounter with him in between might have made this scene more plausible), but it's only an hour and a half - well, an hour forty - and I guess they had to get everything happening.

The visual effects are excellent. Yes, as Wilycub pointed out, perhaps a little dated in one or two places, but on the whole, still very effective. The books floating from one shelf to another is very well done, and my personal favourite is the cards shooting out of the drawers on their own. (The DVD commentary explains how this was done. Easy when you know the answer!) And the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man . . . classic! Tongue firmly in cheek here, this is where you can't help but laugh. "A horror film with comedy moments" - this is where it's sort of both at once. It's causing devastation . . . but it's Ray's idea to think of something harmless and lovable . . . beautiful.

Also, Egon's whole crossing-the-streams stuff was good. Again, they could possibly have introduced the "don't cross the streams" concept a little better than an offhand remark he forgot to tell them about. Maybe they could have had a "pay attention 007" moment when they first put the proton packs on. But it's nothing major. It all still works.

Absolutely a great film!

"LiamABC, post: 116403, member: 25438" said:

Also, Egon's whole crossing-the-streams stuff was good. Again, they could possibly have introduced the "don't cross the streams" concept a little better than an offhand remark he forgot to tell them about. Maybe they could have had a "pay attention 007" moment when they first put the proton packs on.

Hah! I really like that idea! :biggrin They should definitely have made the danger of crossing streams a bit more "conspicuous". Kinda like when Doc Brown stresses again and again that time travel could "create a time paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe!"

"LiamABC, post: 116403, member: 25438" said:

Which brings me onto Winston. The one mistake this film made was not introducing his character earlier.

I think I read somewhere that the character had a much meatier role in the original script, and that is why Ernie Hudson signed on. But on the day of the shooting, they told him that the studios had cut down his part (probably to give more screentime to Bill Murray).

"Wilycub, post: 116406, member: 25043" said:

Hah! I really like that idea! :biggrin They should definitely have made the danger of crossing streams a bit more "conspicuous". Kinda like when Doc Brown stresses again and again that time travel could "create a time paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe!"


I think I read somewhere that the character had a much meatier role in the original script, and that is why Ernie Hudson signed on. But on the day of the shooting, they told him that the studios had cut down his part (probably to give more screentime to Bill Murray).

This is what I read....

According to Ernie Hudson, an earlier version of the script had his character, Winston, in a larger role with an elaborate backstory as an Air Force demolitions expert. Excited by the part, he agreed to the job for half his usual salary. The night before shooting began, he was given a new script with a greatly reduced role; Reitman told him the studio had wanted to expand Murray's role. In a 2015 article for Entertainment Weekly, Hudson wrote: "I love the character and he’s got some great lines, but I felt the guy was just kind of there. I love the movie, I love the guys. I’m very thankful to Ivan for casting me. I’m very thankful that fans appreciate the Winston character. But it’s always been very frustrating—kind of a love/hate thing, I guess."

"Wilycub, post: 116406, member: 25043" said:

I think I read somewhere that the character had a much meatier role in the original script, and that is why Ernie Hudson signed on. But on the day of the shooting, they told him that the studios had cut down his part (probably to give more screentime to Bill Murray).

Ah. A bit like how in the original Star Trek, characters like Sulu, Chekov and especially Uhura had lines cut so Shatner could be in the limelight more.

Ghostbusters is a classic i love this movie that much i went to new york and found a few of the places where it was filmed . I'll post some pictures if that is ok with you liam .

Sure.

"mr freeze, post: 116414, member: 26005" said:

Ghostbusters is a classic i love this movie that much i went to new york and found a few of the places where it was filmed . I'll post some pictures if that is ok with you liam .

I know a couple of people that did the same. :D

"William Graves, post: 116408, member: 26072" said:

This is what I read....

According to Ernie Hudson, an earlier version of the script had his character, Winston, in a larger role with an elaborate backstory as an Air Force demolitions expert. Excited by the part, he agreed to the job for half his usual salary. The night before shooting began, he was given a new script with a greatly reduced role; Reitman told him the studio had wanted to expand Murray's role. In a 2015 article for Entertainment Weekly, Hudson wrote: "I love the character and he’s got some great lines, but I felt the guy was just kind of there. I love the movie, I love the guys. I’m very thankful to Ivan for casting me. I’m very thankful that fans appreciate the Winston character. But it’s always been very frustrating—kind of a love/hate thing, I guess."

The script Ernie read was the original that was intended for Eddie Murphy. They expanded Murray's role as Eddie Murphy pulled out. Had he been involved Winston would have been introduced a lot earlier and got a lot of scenes and lines like getting slimmed in the hotel. .

I adore this movie! I saw it around the same time I saw Batman in cinema in 1989, so I was about 5 or 6. There is not much I can say that hasnt been said already. I know every line, every sound, every effect; I LOVE this movie! :D

"thunderianroyalguard, post: 116526, member: 524" said:

I adore this movie! I saw it around the same time I saw Batman in cinema in 1989, so I was about 5 or 6. There is not much I can say that hasnt been said already. I know every line, every sound, every effect; I LOVE this movie! :D

I drove my family crazy with saying every line every time we'd watch it.

Who's up for watching Ghopstbusters 2 this weekend?

"Mark M, post: 116543, member: 5058" said:

Who's up for watching Ghopstbusters 2 this weekend?

If nobody has any better ideas, it's the plan. That reminds me - any suggestions for movies, please post them on the movie club introduction thread. Ditto cartoons on the ROCKS introduction thread.

The original Ghostbusters flick truly is timeless. I've watched it several times, and I found myself enjoying it.

Ghostbusters I (1984) is one of the most iconic & best films of all time. I've seen it numerous times over the years, and have enjoyed each viewing.

Great effects & story, along with fantastic actors at the top of their game. Interesting to see Sigourney Weaver play a pseudo-"bad guy" here, given that her biggest role up to that point was as the heroic Ripley in the iconic Alien (1979).

Ever since seeing the film, whenever I think of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man I automatically think of his scenes in the movie - LOL. Great product placement here ;)

This also has one of my favorite quotes in all of cinema, i.e. when Venkman (Bill Murray) is going up against the demonic SW & matter of factly says, "Let's show this prehistoric %$#$# how we do things downtown." - LOL ;)