On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?
Posted: January 30th, 2023, 1:23 am
9 times out of 10 the best sequels carry over the main talent in front and BEHIND the camera. Godfather 1 and 2 were both shot by Gordon Willis & scored by Nina Rota. Indiana Jones 1-3 had more or less the same crew doing the lighting, music, visual effects and production design. Star Wars was a bit different since each of the original trilogy changed directors, but the music, production design, and concept art and FX were all largely done by the same crew. Nolan’s TDK trilogy, the Back to the Future trilogy. All largely done by the same talent behind and in front of the camera
Ghostbusters 1 has a very distinct feel and aesthetic. It’s got a strong sense of what it is. Ivan Reitman has some really good and involving shots in the first film. Think of the steadicam shot of the GB’s descending down the library stairs, Egon with the PKE meter in hand, Elmer Bernstein’s eerie score playing in the background. There’s a very serious tone established. The cinematography is naturalistic, gritty and grainy. Nothing is stylized. But it’s very much a movie that feels like it belongs in New York & created by the comedy icons of the “middle finger to the establishment” era. Ivan Reitman had the pick of the litter for behind the scenes talent. It’san insanely impressive line up for a comedy. John Decuir on production design, Laslo Kovac’s as DP, Elmer Bernstein as composer.. Add in Richard Edlund as VFX Supervisor and those are some heavy hitters.
Then we get Ghostbusters 2. And let me just say upfront..I LOVE Ghostbusters 2. I do. But gone is the gritty, grimy feeling. Almost everyone behind the scenes is new. And again Reitman picks some of the best of the best for a lot of the new crew. New cinematographer, one known oddly enough for his gritty New York Martin Scorsese movies, Michael Chapman. Having Michael Chapman do the cinematography for GB2 would be as if it was announced someone like Emmanuel Lubezki, Roger Deakins or Robert Richardson were doing the lighting on GB4. And yet..GB2 started the change in Chapman’s overall oeuvre. Everything is clean, composed, no diffusion or much grain. Very safe. Very…corporate feeling. Then on production design we have Bo Welch. And again…we have one of the top production designers of that era. Hell..of any era. And yet compared to Ghostbusters 1 GB2 is very safe, sterile and unassuming in its design. There’s none of the gothic German Expressionism from Bo Welch’s Tim Burton/Barry Sonnenfeld work. Then on music we have Randy Edelman who…creates a very odd but rising theme for the GB’s but also some bland and quite dated music.
This time we have legend Dennis Murren and ILM doing FX work. It’s a veritable whose who of 1980s/90s top tier talent.
And yet…Ghostbusters 2 plays it very safe. We have very few if any of the dynamic camera move from Reitman this time out(the aforementioned steadicam shot or the 180 spin around Dana to reveal the kitchen door from GB1). For all the extreme creative talent involved we have a very normal looking movie. A good looking movie no doubt. But not unique. Not aesthetically interesting. It just…is. It looks like Bill Murray walked of the Scrooged set and onto the GB2 set and nothing changed.
GB2 definitely feels more like a corporate product. It has the same style of jokes and pace. It’s funny. But there’s none of the grit and grime. I always like comparing Ghostbusters and Indiana Jones. An Indiana Jones film is very easy to define. We know what it SHOULD look, sound and smell like. Same with Star Wars.
Ghostbusters doesn’t have that. And I wonder if all that goes back to all the creative behind the scenes talent switch over they had on the sequel. If GB2 has that same gritty and grime style as GB1…does the films tonal message about bad vibes play better? Does it help critics and audiences accept the story a little more? Did any of those original crew members offer suggestions(like John De Cuir did) for story beats on this imaginary GB2? Does BOSS film make the ghosts a little more terrifying and a little less cartoony? One wonders.
And more than anything…does it help define what a Ghostbusters movie looks, sounds and feels like? And does that make the franchise stronger and less vulnerable to rebooting/remaking?
Because after GB2 we now had two Ghostbusters movies that looked and felt very different from one another. The Smokey PG13 boundary pushing gritty New York of the early 1980s in GB1 and the more corporate cartoony and safe sequel.
I just don’t know. Again I love GB2. I love the looks of the ghosts, some of the music, the changes ILM made to the proton streams. But I think doing all that crew change over hurt the franchise overall in the long term. Maybe Paul Feig feels like GB is too established in its tone and style to mess with something that works had Reitman not done a creative overhaul on GB2. Maybe? If GB2 looked, felt and smelt like GB1, does it improve audience perception, critical evaluation and the overall legacy? What does that do to the development of GB3?
Something to think about.
PS. Here’s a deleted scene excerpt from an early GB2 draft from 8/5/88 (when the draft had bugs being the sign of evilness is afoot & not the river of slime. So picture this scene but instead of bugs it’s Slime in the finished film. This would fit PERFECTLY with the aesthetic of film 1). This is the type of edge GB2 needed. It’s a great bit and it’s a shame they didn’t use it.
EXT. EAST SIDE TOWNHOUSE - DUSK
CUT TO:
The spectacular rococo-style private mansion is the residence of LEONA and AUBREY WELLESLEY. Matching Rolls-Royce convertibles are parked out front.
LEONA (off camera):
“Aubrey, this is just impossible. I cannot and I will not wear those same old pearls to the Hoskins' dinner party. It is simply too much to ask.”
INT. THE LIVING ROOM ~ CONTINUOUS
LEONA WELLESLEY, a fabulously tanned and expensively dressed woman in her early fifties is haranguing her husband who is off—stage in the adjacent study.
LEONA:
“The last thing in the world I need
to do is to walk into Helen Hoskins' party wearing those hopeless little pearls.”
INT. THE STUDY - CONTINUOUS
AUBREY WELLESLEY, silver-haired, handsome and also very tan, is sitting at his leather-topped desk quietly loading a nickel-plated .38 caliber revolver.
LEONA (o.c.)
“It's just too humiliating for words. And I hope you're not planning on wearing that same old dinner jacket. Honestly, Aubrey, Cynthia Powell actually snickered when you walked in wearing that dreadful old rag. It makes you look like a Cuban bandleader.”
(CONTINUED)
Aubrey finishes loading the gun, snaps the cylinder closed, and gives it a spin.
LEONA She primps in a gilded mirror, still prattling vainly.
LEONA:
“No, you need a new tuxedo and I'm
going to Cartier first thing tomorrow morning and buy that emerald necklace. I need it, I want it, and that's all there is to it.”
A PAINTING ON THE WALL
An Old Master, some beautiful bucolic pastoral. Slowly, from behind one corner of it's ornate gold frame, a bristling, seemingly unending line of cockroaches marches out, travels down the wall onto a credenza and across a silver tea service.
LEONA (o.c.)
“You know who's going to be there, don't you? Pietro deLago, the artist who did those fabulous trompel'oeilFrenchwindowsfor Elva Russell's breakfast nook in the Hamptons.”
AUBREY He enters the living room holding the loaded gun.
LEONA (oblivious):
“You should have seen how he looked at me at Elva's luncheon. Be careful, Aubrey. I may just run off with him.”
CEILING
Roaches are streaming from the base of the elaborate chandelier and crawling downward over the dangling crystal pendants.
(CONTINUED)
LEONA (o.c.) :
“You may not know it, but a lot of men find me extremely attractive.”
THE FLOORBOARDS
Silverfish and millipedes by the thousands pour forth from under an antique Oriental carpet and swarm across the highly-polished hardwood floor.
LEONA
She pours herself a glass of champagne from a bottle of Dom Perignon in a silver ice bucket.
AUBREY
LEONA:
“But then you don't seem to notice anything about me anymore.”
He raises the pistol and aims at Leona who looks up and sees him pointing the revolver at her.
LEONA (misreading his
intention)
“Not another new pistol! It's fine for you to buy expensive guns and things but when I want something--“
He grits his teeth and is just about to shoot when suddenly a roach drops from the chandelier and lands in Leona's champagne glass. She screams and drops the glass as roaches start dropping like buzz bombs from the ceiling. Aubrey looks up and sees the incredible swarm of insects and starts firing wildly at the ceiling.
—
Ghostbusters 1 has a very distinct feel and aesthetic. It’s got a strong sense of what it is. Ivan Reitman has some really good and involving shots in the first film. Think of the steadicam shot of the GB’s descending down the library stairs, Egon with the PKE meter in hand, Elmer Bernstein’s eerie score playing in the background. There’s a very serious tone established. The cinematography is naturalistic, gritty and grainy. Nothing is stylized. But it’s very much a movie that feels like it belongs in New York & created by the comedy icons of the “middle finger to the establishment” era. Ivan Reitman had the pick of the litter for behind the scenes talent. It’san insanely impressive line up for a comedy. John Decuir on production design, Laslo Kovac’s as DP, Elmer Bernstein as composer.. Add in Richard Edlund as VFX Supervisor and those are some heavy hitters.
Then we get Ghostbusters 2. And let me just say upfront..I LOVE Ghostbusters 2. I do. But gone is the gritty, grimy feeling. Almost everyone behind the scenes is new. And again Reitman picks some of the best of the best for a lot of the new crew. New cinematographer, one known oddly enough for his gritty New York Martin Scorsese movies, Michael Chapman. Having Michael Chapman do the cinematography for GB2 would be as if it was announced someone like Emmanuel Lubezki, Roger Deakins or Robert Richardson were doing the lighting on GB4. And yet..GB2 started the change in Chapman’s overall oeuvre. Everything is clean, composed, no diffusion or much grain. Very safe. Very…corporate feeling. Then on production design we have Bo Welch. And again…we have one of the top production designers of that era. Hell..of any era. And yet compared to Ghostbusters 1 GB2 is very safe, sterile and unassuming in its design. There’s none of the gothic German Expressionism from Bo Welch’s Tim Burton/Barry Sonnenfeld work. Then on music we have Randy Edelman who…creates a very odd but rising theme for the GB’s but also some bland and quite dated music.
This time we have legend Dennis Murren and ILM doing FX work. It’s a veritable whose who of 1980s/90s top tier talent.
And yet…Ghostbusters 2 plays it very safe. We have very few if any of the dynamic camera move from Reitman this time out(the aforementioned steadicam shot or the 180 spin around Dana to reveal the kitchen door from GB1). For all the extreme creative talent involved we have a very normal looking movie. A good looking movie no doubt. But not unique. Not aesthetically interesting. It just…is. It looks like Bill Murray walked of the Scrooged set and onto the GB2 set and nothing changed.
GB2 definitely feels more like a corporate product. It has the same style of jokes and pace. It’s funny. But there’s none of the grit and grime. I always like comparing Ghostbusters and Indiana Jones. An Indiana Jones film is very easy to define. We know what it SHOULD look, sound and smell like. Same with Star Wars.
Ghostbusters doesn’t have that. And I wonder if all that goes back to all the creative behind the scenes talent switch over they had on the sequel. If GB2 has that same gritty and grime style as GB1…does the films tonal message about bad vibes play better? Does it help critics and audiences accept the story a little more? Did any of those original crew members offer suggestions(like John De Cuir did) for story beats on this imaginary GB2? Does BOSS film make the ghosts a little more terrifying and a little less cartoony? One wonders.
And more than anything…does it help define what a Ghostbusters movie looks, sounds and feels like? And does that make the franchise stronger and less vulnerable to rebooting/remaking?
Because after GB2 we now had two Ghostbusters movies that looked and felt very different from one another. The Smokey PG13 boundary pushing gritty New York of the early 1980s in GB1 and the more corporate cartoony and safe sequel.
I just don’t know. Again I love GB2. I love the looks of the ghosts, some of the music, the changes ILM made to the proton streams. But I think doing all that crew change over hurt the franchise overall in the long term. Maybe Paul Feig feels like GB is too established in its tone and style to mess with something that works had Reitman not done a creative overhaul on GB2. Maybe? If GB2 looked, felt and smelt like GB1, does it improve audience perception, critical evaluation and the overall legacy? What does that do to the development of GB3?
Something to think about.
PS. Here’s a deleted scene excerpt from an early GB2 draft from 8/5/88 (when the draft had bugs being the sign of evilness is afoot & not the river of slime. So picture this scene but instead of bugs it’s Slime in the finished film. This would fit PERFECTLY with the aesthetic of film 1). This is the type of edge GB2 needed. It’s a great bit and it’s a shame they didn’t use it.
EXT. EAST SIDE TOWNHOUSE - DUSK
CUT TO:
The spectacular rococo-style private mansion is the residence of LEONA and AUBREY WELLESLEY. Matching Rolls-Royce convertibles are parked out front.
LEONA (off camera):
“Aubrey, this is just impossible. I cannot and I will not wear those same old pearls to the Hoskins' dinner party. It is simply too much to ask.”
INT. THE LIVING ROOM ~ CONTINUOUS
LEONA WELLESLEY, a fabulously tanned and expensively dressed woman in her early fifties is haranguing her husband who is off—stage in the adjacent study.
LEONA:
“The last thing in the world I need
to do is to walk into Helen Hoskins' party wearing those hopeless little pearls.”
INT. THE STUDY - CONTINUOUS
AUBREY WELLESLEY, silver-haired, handsome and also very tan, is sitting at his leather-topped desk quietly loading a nickel-plated .38 caliber revolver.
LEONA (o.c.)
“It's just too humiliating for words. And I hope you're not planning on wearing that same old dinner jacket. Honestly, Aubrey, Cynthia Powell actually snickered when you walked in wearing that dreadful old rag. It makes you look like a Cuban bandleader.”
(CONTINUED)
Aubrey finishes loading the gun, snaps the cylinder closed, and gives it a spin.
LEONA She primps in a gilded mirror, still prattling vainly.
LEONA:
“No, you need a new tuxedo and I'm
going to Cartier first thing tomorrow morning and buy that emerald necklace. I need it, I want it, and that's all there is to it.”
A PAINTING ON THE WALL
An Old Master, some beautiful bucolic pastoral. Slowly, from behind one corner of it's ornate gold frame, a bristling, seemingly unending line of cockroaches marches out, travels down the wall onto a credenza and across a silver tea service.
LEONA (o.c.)
“You know who's going to be there, don't you? Pietro deLago, the artist who did those fabulous trompel'oeilFrenchwindowsfor Elva Russell's breakfast nook in the Hamptons.”
AUBREY He enters the living room holding the loaded gun.
LEONA (oblivious):
“You should have seen how he looked at me at Elva's luncheon. Be careful, Aubrey. I may just run off with him.”
CEILING
Roaches are streaming from the base of the elaborate chandelier and crawling downward over the dangling crystal pendants.
(CONTINUED)
LEONA (o.c.) :
“You may not know it, but a lot of men find me extremely attractive.”
THE FLOORBOARDS
Silverfish and millipedes by the thousands pour forth from under an antique Oriental carpet and swarm across the highly-polished hardwood floor.
LEONA
She pours herself a glass of champagne from a bottle of Dom Perignon in a silver ice bucket.
AUBREY
LEONA:
“But then you don't seem to notice anything about me anymore.”
He raises the pistol and aims at Leona who looks up and sees him pointing the revolver at her.
LEONA (misreading his
intention)
“Not another new pistol! It's fine for you to buy expensive guns and things but when I want something--“
He grits his teeth and is just about to shoot when suddenly a roach drops from the chandelier and lands in Leona's champagne glass. She screams and drops the glass as roaches start dropping like buzz bombs from the ceiling. Aubrey looks up and sees the incredible swarm of insects and starts firing wildly at the ceiling.
—