Why do people hate part II so much?
I don't get why this film gets so much hate.
shareI don't get it either, I always found both extremely entertaining and they've both held up very well. Always felt the sequel was sorely underrated and deserved much better.
The common criticisms I've seen GB2 get is it's too similar to the original and hits too many of the same beats (which I can see although I think it still does enough new and different that it feels fresh) and that it's toned down and kid-friendly compared to the first mainly since the Ghostbusters don't smoke nearly as much. Which I always felt was a ridiculous criticism, they didn't smoke a whole lot in the first either, and nothing about the sequel feels more kid-friendly. If anything it feels far darker and scarier.
The common criticisms I've seen GB2 get is...it's toned down and kid-friendly
Well those people must have missed Ray's line about the mood slime, in the restaurant scene towards the end. I guess it's a little hard to hear over all the other talking, but:
"It effects behavior! It effects behavior--like we were fighting! Now we're just excited, you see?! It's like a drug!"
But sure, this is totally a kiddie movie. 😏
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at once." share
I think by "kid-friendly" they mean that A. there's a baby in it, and B. there's not nearly as many dirty jokes. I think the average joke in part two is about as good as the average joke in part 1, the main difference being that I never found anything in part two to be as funny as the best jokes in the original. But the only thing I actually find bad about part two is the musical score, which is full of '80s-era schmaltzy romantic music. The original score was much better.
-There is no such word as "alot."
'80s-era schmaltzy romantic music. The original score was much better.
Actually, I thought GB2's score had a lot of really weird, quirky numbers, meanwhile the original score had a song from Air Supply. ;)
"Let them call me renegade. I don't care." share
I think by "kid-friendly" they mean that A. there's a baby in it, and B. there's not nearly as many dirty jokes.
You may be right (as in that's what folks mean when they use that criticism), however I'd counter with:
A) So? Having a baby doesn't by default mean its kiddie. Keep in mind the villain wanted to POSSESS that baby. That's actually pretty damn sinister, wanting to steal another human being's remaining years for yourself.
EDITED TO ADD: Actually the main criticism I've always heard against the movie wasn't that there was a baby at all in the movie, but that it wasn't Peter's. I've even heard many theories postulating how it could still in fact be Peter's, that Dana only said it was someone else cause Peter is irresponsible.
B) Dirty jokes can be a crutch to a bad/lacking story. That actually works in GB2's favor, not against. With everything else that was going on I actually didn't notice until I started hearing the criticisms against the movie. share
So? Having a baby doesn't by default mean its kiddie. Keep in mind the villain wanted to POSSESS that baby. That's actually pretty damn sinister
Agreed, I think people are too quick to call that kiddie. Having an annoyingly precocious kid dominate your movie would be kiddie. But GBII isn't about Oscar, it's about the adults who have to save him.
Dirty jokes can be a crutch
You know part of the reason I never find anything in the first Ghostbusters scary is because pretty much everything is undercut with a joke, especially naughty ones, lol. Not saying that's a bad thing, that's just what it is. But because Ghostbusters II isn't relying so much on the naughty jokes, the situations the guys find themselves in, and their reactions to them, are allowed to be scarier and just more earnest overall. share
and that it's toned down and kid-friendly compared to the first
Slimer driving a bus and Statue of Liberty aside...REALLY? The first movie had nothing like the Scolari Brothers ghosts, still strapped to their electric chair, or the scene of Yanoz getting possessed, or Yanoz with that Mister Fantastic arm kidnapping the baby, or the mood slime trying to eat Dana (it looked identical to The Blob remake which had actually came out roughly a year before Ghosbusters 2), or my favorite, Vigo transforming into that melon head with red eyes and horns and then briefly turning Ray into the same when he briefly possessed him.
Not arguing with YOU but rather that particular criticism. That one doesn't make a lot of sense and in fact is probably one of the few things part 2 has over part 1. In part 1 the closest I can think of is the librarian scene but they carefully/successfully played that for laughs cause they ran out of there. lol share