MovieChat Forums > Ghostbusters II (1989) Discussion > Why do people hate part II so much?

Why do people hate part II so much?


I don't get why this film gets so much hate.

reply

I'm sure somebody already mentioned it on here, but it's mainly due to the fact that they toned it down to make it more kid-friendly.

Columbia Pictures/Sony made a huge profit off of the first one by pushing toys for kids, so they told Ivan Reitman and crew to market it towards children. As a result, this is what was produced.

Sony isn't really known to make sound decisions. Just look at "Ghostbusters" (2016). It was supposed to be a third installment, but they made one bad choice after another. It was complete garbage to most people including myself. This film came off like some sort of cinematic masterpiece after that steaming pile of dung.

Do I dislike the sequel? Absolutely not. It's just as fun as the first film, even if some of the elements seem rather silly. I still thoroughly enjoy it nowadays.

reply

It's not that I hate it, it's just a very close remake of the original in many respects.

reply

Think that's true of any sequel, it's true of the Alien movies, the Terminator movies and practical every film that has spawned one or more sequels.

reply

I'm pretty sure the main reason for it being so close in story to the original is because the Real Ghostbusters cartoon was still on at that point and the people in charge of that show insisted they couldn't make it similar to that where they're still in business. DIC owned the rights to the show at the time and it was on ABC which wasn't owned by Sony. So they had to make it similar to the first because of that. I actually really love this movie but I do understand some fans wishing the Ghostbusters never went out of business. But the cartoon prevented that from happening.

reply

I love Ghostbusters II! I've thought it was a great sequel since I was a little kid, and I still watch it now and laugh hysterically. I've always thought the hate for this movie was bullshit.

"Sure, the blackout was a big problem for everybody. I was trapped in an elevator for two hours and I had to make the whole time. But I don’t blame them...because one time I turned into a dog and they helped me. Thank you."

If you don't laugh at that moment there is no hope for you, haha.

Love Ghostbusters II, and I always will.

reply

In my view, it lost the magic of the first film. From the start of the movie, there is a grey cloud over it, especially when we learn that the Ghostbusters had been sued and blamed for all of the damage and are now not even taken seriously. They saved the City of New York! It cast a pall over the film and they covered it up with lazy writing and a bad script. Winston comes and goes without explanation and there doesn't seem to be any follow-up to the previous movie.

If you watch it closely, and I just did again, Bill Murray doesn't want to be there. Dan Akroyd is carrying the film, Ramis is just being Ramis and Hudson is hanging on to whatever scene he can be in. Dana Barrott having a son (with an AWOL father) isn't exactly good material either.

I dunno, it lost the energy of the first film and could've been better. That's all.

reply

Overall the movie is terrible, rushed, and poorly executed. But it features some truly wonderful scenes. I feel like they had some great ideas for scenes and couldn't think of great way to string them all together.

reply

Its not half as good as the original. Jokes, story, bad guy, everything.

Its still ok but not half as good.

reply

My only complaint would be that Venkman wasn't with the crew when they explored and fell into the river of slime.

reply

I thought this film was just as great as the original, the only thing what I find inferior about this movie to the original is I didn't think Kurt Fuller's character as Jack Hardemeyer was as well written as William Atherton's character as Walter Peck, that is my only gripe about this film.

reply