Same director

>same director
>same writers
>same actors
>somehow terrible

What the hell happened?

Attached: ghostbusters-ii-5925290024c45.jpg (1000x1426, 432K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DaIZvCDWAcQ
youtube.com/watch?v=NSLSUDDKpbA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

because they made it to sell toys.

it happens, see spider-man 3 for example.

It's not terrible, just not as good as the first.

Sequels a shit

It was made back when sequels could just be a slightly crappier version of the original and it was considered acceptable.

Also see Rocky 2 and Major League 2.

Soundtrack is okay but score is a serious letdown from the first, done by the same guy who scored the chipmunk adventure and a bunch of 90s family films where all the beats are telegraphed and indicated to hell

Spidey 3 is prequelesque in it's corniness, though. It's enjoyable once you accept it's stupid and just laughed at the awkwardness

>Soundtrack is okay

Disagree
The Run DMC version of the Ghostbusters theme is ass cancer

(You're right about the score though)

spiderman 3 is kino

>same director
>same writers
>same actors
>somehow terrible

What the hell happened?

Attached: The Hobbit.jpg (333x500, 34K)

it was made to sell expensive DVD/Blueray sets

>stretching out a

>terrible
Fuck that. It didn't have the embarrassing ghost blowjob scene. And the actual horror parts were genuinely fucking spooky. It may not have been as good as the first but it was a solid movie.

Sequels are usually inferior as they often merely try to capture the original's magic. But this doesn't mean that they're "terrible". Peter MacNicol turned in a beloved performance as Janosz, for one thing.

The Bobby Brown New Jack Swing track is 11/10 and you're both wrong for complaining about any of the musical material used in Ghostbusters II.

They waited too long to make it. 5 years was fine for kids who had the cartoon to see them through, but it was too long for the general movie going public. If it had come out two years after the first film it would have been fine.

Am I the only that thought they'd reveal that Venkman was Oscar's dad? So weird that they'd give Dana a kid via some dude who's never seen or mentioned by name.

It was originally going to be directed by Del Toro. Then the studio had a bad year financially and decided it needed a hit trilogy. Hobbit was going to be 2 movies under Del Toro (in fairness there is a really good halfway point in the book) but once the studio forced a trilogy Del Toro left the project.

Unfortunately Peter Jackson's company had already spent millions in pre-prodution and could've gone under had the film not gone through so Jackson had to step up as director. He had no break between making Tintin and starting the Hobbit and most of the prep for Del Toro's version had to be cut or seriously modified to fit PJ's vision/film-making style/whatever.

By the end of it Jackson was literally winging it every single day and making up the film as he went along. I can't say I hate him for it. Considering the circumstances the fact the movie's are at least watchable is a testament to Jackson's skill. They're still not very good though.

>The Bobby Brown New Jack Swing track is 11/10 and you're both wrong for complaining about any of the musical material used in Ghostbusters II.


mah nigga came here to post "on our own"

youtube.com/watch?v=DaIZvCDWAcQ

It was DOA when the first scene was them breaking the fourth wall and dancing to the Ghostbusters song, while then talking about how they got sued out of business and were not at all heroes for saving the city.

I think the real reason, though, was that the original was a script/story that had been worked on and tweaked for years until everything worked, while the second one was just churned in no time.

On Our Own might LITERALLY be the best movie song ever though. Fucking great song and it also accomplishes the requisite 80s/90s movie soundtrack thing of explaining the story of the movie in the song.

It was a fucking fluke. In no way should that have been a success. It was the Pirates of The Caribbean: Curse of The Black Pearl of it's age.

And even then guys, lets be honest it's pretty "whatever". Certainly not some Godly brand-loyalty tier thing.

I thought it was ok

fpbp

it's not too terrible and it has some good laughs and good scenes but it's still so much worse compared to the first movie

Shit, I was referring to the original and how it spawned this whole pop-culture amoeba .

I like it.

Thanks

sequels were notoriously shit in the 80's. It was expected

I used to pause it and fap to that female prosecutor when she gets turned upside down by that ghost and you can see her stockings and garters.

It's a bit narrow to make three movies out of. The concept that is.

compared to the tmnt sequel it's a masterpiece

Movies are made to make money, not to be good.

Aliens and empire strikes back would like a word.

Didn't have enough time yet they are bloated pieces of shit?

Why was it so hard to make good sequels in the 80s?

Attached: 9Fr87sNquK9PkABCgY904PWcNMz.jpg (1103x1500, 210K)

They were the exception not the rule. Back then you usually expected a sequel to be worse. Cameron already had success with Terminator so there was a good chance Aliens wouldn't suck. I remember my Dad specifically telling me when we went to see it that it was "by the guy who made Terminator!"

>That final helicopter shot rising up from Lady LIberty and panning to the New York skyline with this in the background
I cry every time, and I'm not even a filthy Jew Yorker

Literally just finished watching this for the first time before seeing this thread. I think it's pretty much equal in quality to the first one. As in, I think they're so fucking close that any negatives said for 2 could also he said for 1. Why is it considered hated?

It usually felt like they didn't give much of a fuck about trying to make it good let alone better than the first. Like we were lucky just to see characters we liked again.

It's like Predator 2 (which I also like). It's an okay movie but for some people it comes off as unnecessary, unoriginal and inferior.

It wasn't "hated", it just didn't do nearly as well as the first because like you said it was basically the same script as the first just tweaked a few different ways. Also it came out too far after the first one. Didn't have much momentum.

I liked Predator 2 as well. Hell I went to see it in the theater. A lot of my friends at the time didn't give a fuck about it because no Arnie.

I loved gb2

>somehow terrible
It's not terrible, though. It's okay.

>What the hell happened?
It didn't need to exist. Also, even good writers swing and miss. Actually, they swing and miss more often than they connect.

It's just Ghostbusters 1 again.

>the Ghostbusters are down-on-their-luck schlubs that everyone thinks are kooks and conmen (even though this makes no fucking sense after GB1)
>Venkman spends the entire movie wooing Dana
>capturing ghosts montage
>ghosts attacking New Yorkers montage
>the mayor, at his wits end, has no choice but to enlist the Ghostbusters
>government asshole that's been thwarting the Ghostbusters gets his comeuppance
>giant fucking spectral thing masquerading as something else marching through Manhattan
>ends with the Ghostbusters being cheered as heroes by a huge crowd of New Yorkers

Major League 2 is passable for a comedy sequel

I thought they'd reveal it was Rick Moranis/Tully, but this was kid me thinking the movie took place like a year or two later. They totally fucked while they had demons in them in part 1, right? It'd make sense if not for the larger time skip in the movie.

>the Ghostbusters are down-on-their-luck schlubs that everyone thinks are kooks and conmen (even though this makes no fucking sense after GB1)

The increase in ghost activity in the first one is from Gozer's coming. They defeat Gozer and ghost activity diminishes. It makes sense people would try to call them conmen to a degree. They have floats in parades, it's not hard to think they faked the marshmallow man.

>>>/reddit/

Also if you look at Jackson's photos from that era, he look like a walking corpse. This movie fucked him up. Shit movie, lot of wasted potential.

Sequels always suck. End of story. Name one sequel to anything that didnt suck. No Godfather, either, cuz GF 2 was fuckin awful but no one will admit it

Premise solid for one film, not for a franchise.

>CG up the ass
>randomly snips bits and pieces of other Tolkien books to give the movies a prequel vibe
>no songs
>dwarves are handsome young men instead of old dudes
>forced a romantic interest into the story
>worse yet, the romantic interest is an OC donut steel

fuck the hobbit

MGM has had it bad for a long time now. They're joke of a studio. They never pressured Del Toro to do 3 movies. Jackson came in with all these ideas and typically does extended versions they asked for 3. They had to increase the budget of the franchise significantly to do a 3rd, it's not like they could just make it happen. Everyone involved was confident Jackson's name on all 3 films would sell them.

Del Toro left because he was less proven and didn't get as much in creative control and then they threw BS his way with legal troubles and money troubles. Basically, they didn't respect him and he knew throughout the shoot, post, editing it would not change, so he didn't want to work under such heavy scrutiny for 2-3 more years and left.

It's a sequel op. The odds are that it was going to be, because this time it's only about money.

They already told the joke.

Literally only existed because the studio wanted "LotR, again!" Del Toro either left or was fired (it's still not clear) because the studios were interfering and fucking around. It was made a trilogy because LotR was a trilogy and so many people got a take of the films that they were hoping they'd get more overall if they made it 3. As someone else already pointed out, almost all of Del Toro's pre-production had to be dustbinned and it shows.

What the fuck is up with the sudden recent hate for Ghostbuster 2? I mean many have said for the past 30 years that it was a bit lacking (I personally enjoy it) but there hasn't been any "hate" for it.
But these past two months I can hardly see a mention of it without the words "lackluster", "underwhelming","bad" etc. etc. added to it. It is ESPECIALLY obvious with all the nu-pseudo-blogger sites (Gizmodo and the like).

Why are you lying though

roasties and SJWs asshurt about Reitman's new GB3

Listen here you onions riddled faggot, that scene was gold! GOLD I TELLS YA!

I actually liked Hills Cop 2. It had way more action and funnier scenes though admittedly the plot was not only a clone of the 1st film’s, it was REALLY paper-thin.

shrek 2

>Premise solid for one film, not for a franchise.

Put this on a fucking plaque.

Spider-Man 3 is still pure kino but the studio wanted Venom while Raimi didn't so it can't even be compared to Ghostbusters.

The Maple Films edit makes it actually halfway decent.

I always file that song away in my brain in the same spot as the Jason Takes Manhattan theme.

youtube.com/watch?v=NSLSUDDKpbA

i like ghostbusters II, its a good movie. fuck the haters.

But Beverly Hills Cop 2 is great.