Ron Daniels wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 5:36 pm
Not sure how much of it is trying to make this is head cannon and how much of it just seems to be served up for the audience. I mean the last time I had an inter dimensional gateway blown up on me, I had to take these huge water pills and Tylenol for a couple of weeks.
I get that a lot of fans are trying to head canon things into making sense. I get the temptation to want to do that. But unless a character says “Hey. This is how it works. Gozer is weaker because…” it’s just us fans trying to make sense of a messy plot. Sometimes you can tell when a film wants the audience to figure things out for itself, which is fine. But there are other times when you have to question the logic & say “hey wait a minute. Ghostbusters has a certain verisimilitude & this goes against that”.
I do think there is a lot left lacking with respect to the plot related to Gozer though. Between the two movies, we get about 15-20 minutes of Gozer lore and candidly some of GBA seemingly retcons what we learned in GB1.
I think also something that just sticks out to me is Gozer in GB1 seems powerful. GBA builds Gozer up to
be powerful. Last time I checked there were no Ghostbusters to whip Gozer’s butt in 1945, 1908, or any of the other times listed on the wall in the temple. So what gives? Is Gozer not that big of a deal and we have been misled the entire time?
I’ve been in a minority about this since I joined this community in 1997, but Ghostbusters II presents the more coherent plot for the “bad guy” that makes sense. Taking over the world and ruling it as a despot just makes
more sense that arriving to destroy a world. Just arrive
as a meteorite in space and destroy the thing, ya know?
It’s 100% the fans head cannoning this to make sense of it. I appreciate mrmichaelst attempts at trying to make sense of all this but a lot of it just feels like grasping at straws to me. There was nothing in the first movie where we are wondering “wait..but why did?”. The only thing in the 2nd movie like that is the Ghostbusters in painting at the end. It’s suppose to be a joke but it leaves the audience kinda going…wait a sec. Why did that happen? It doesn’t derail the movie or anything because it’s about the only example of it and it’s right at the end. Though I do think that painting doesn’t get the laugh it needs to and so people walk out of that theatre feeling like the last joke was kinda lame, which is never something you want in a comedy.
Like…the PKE energy making the marshmallow men come to life still doesn’t make any sense. I’m sorry but…the only reason a Stay Puft Marshmallow Man being alive is a thing is because there was a cause and effect. There was a set up and pay off. We all know the real reason those little Stay Puft guys are there is because it was a thing from the first movie and they are adorable. Again…they had the easiest way to make them work built in to the movie. Egon kept samples of the mash mallow man goo and when the PKE energy starts to build or whatever then they come back to life. Appearing out of a bag of Stay Puft Marshmallows…it’s so lazy it gives me a headache.
There’s no way Jason Reitman and Gil Kenan were like “Ok. The reason we are going to have the terror dogs turn into burnt husks is (insert mrmichaelt’s explanation here) or Mr Stay Puft is back in tiny form because(insert his explanation here) but we won’t bother giving the audience any of that information because it’s better for the audience to figure things out for themselves…in a Ghostbusters movie”
The reason why Ghostbusters works so wonderfully is that every feels plausible and like it’s been thought out(even though behind the scenes a lot of it was done on the fly). The foundation feels rock solid.
Now the average audience member isn’t going to notice most of these plot logic contrivances. But the more the movie sits with me, the more the cracks in the foundation start to appear. I really think they were more concerned with the references than the reason for those references.
I’d love to ask Jason why little Stay Puft Men exist in this movie. We know the logic behind the characters involvement in the original film. What’s the purpose here?
I’d love to ask him why and what Gozer’s plan was and why was it not the same as in 1984? Was this stuff they thought about and reasoned out?
Somehow I feel MrmichaelT has thought about this time more than they did.
Think of how the kids come across Muncher. It feels random to me. But all they would’ve had to do is this: The Ecto 1 has an internal PKE meter (like a GPS system but for PKE) and Trevor is just following where it points. Boom. Problem solved AND we get the added bonus of having some cool new Ecto 1 mythology.
That’s the other problem. Some of these are just easy fixes.
I guess I’ll sum this up by saying 2/3rds of this movie is really, really good. Then the final 3rd is like…WOW awesome! Ooh ok..huh? Oh wow awesome again! Wait..but that isn’t so…Oh wow look! sweet! Geez dial it down Dan…WOW did they just?? Awesome! But wait..now how & why did?..Oh my god hand me the Kleenex. Bravo. Bravo.
The movie has incredible highs but also some really low lows. I hate agreeing with a lot of the critics, because I’m not against fan service or nostalgia. But I am against using it in the wrong way. Sometimes they nailed it here. Most times they did. But then a few times it feels like they put no thought into beyond “the fans will love this! Look! Adorable Mr Stay Pufts! We are going to make a fortune in merchandise!”