MovieChat Forums > Ghostbusters (1984) Discussion > I'm a HUGE fan of "Ghostbusters II" (198...

I'm a HUGE fan of "Ghostbusters II" (1989). Am I alone in the universe?

posted 8 years ago by Necronomicon2016
26 replies | jump to latest

To me it was a top notch sequel.
The brilliant sci-fi was in there.
The supernatural villain, very unique and original, was in there. Vigo is an icon of the Eighties.
The character-arc was in there, showing the Ghostbusters years later since their biggest mission, now far from their "heyday" and virtually forgotten by almost everyone, older but still able to save the world.
The comedy was in there.
The direction and the special effects were great for the time.

I love this sequel. I love it so much. It's an underrated classic, and AT THE TIME it was a huge hit.

Am I alone?

The True Ghostbusters FORUM
http://filmationghostbuster.proboards.com

[–] abunn1988 8 years ago

No I love it too.

Can you quack like a duck when you suck?

[–] NeonManiac0 8 years ago

I never got people saying GB2 was toned down from the original movie when in a lot of ways it's arguably darker and scarier, especially the heads on the stakes. They definitely amped up the scares.

[–] NeonManiac0 8 years ago

Bringing this back. Just because the GB2 love "keeps lifting me higher and higher"  

[–] csweetleaf2 (3545) 7 years ago

I've thought GB2 was a great movie and one of the best sequels of all time, even as a kid I liked GB2 better than this movie because of the lighthearted humor, however as an adult I prefer this movie. a little more because I've thought Kurt Fuller's character in GB2 wasn't as well written or given much depth as William Atherton's character in this movie.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

If you study the structure of each story, it’s not a sequel, it’s a rewrite. They follow the exact same ups and downs, and end with a giant creature. For that I don’t like it.

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

Sigourney Weaver took her top off which for my adolescent self at the time was a definite highlight.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

It's fun, the effects were good, and it was on TV a lot when I was growing up. The only issue I have is that Peter doesn't spend most of the movie with the rest of the ghostbusters. He's rekindling his relationship with Dana while the rest of the guys are looking for the slime river.

The train scene was my favorite.

[–] Olivergbyrne (685) 7 years ago

Well it was certainly better than the remake. It had the right balance between funny and spooky..The remake was just too slapstick and it did not feel like Ghostbusters , shame because the cast was good...I even liked Leslie Jones..

[–] fooman (288) 3 years ago

It was more of the original Ghostbusters, what's not to like? Apparently Rick Moranis had so much fun on set he suggested making it a regular TV show which would have been great, but this was before big TV series really took off.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

“This was before big TV series really took off.”

So you don’t know about Dallas, Dynasty or Miami Vice.

At that time, there was also the option of the mini-series, like Roots, The Thorn Birds and The Stand. They could have out a live-action Ghostbusters show on live TV. They must have doubted its profitability.