The slime is a reference to the Orgone experiments. Orgone is a physical manifestation of organic bio electric energy. It's like an ecto plasm. They used to make orgone generators that were supposed to create the stuff for refueling. It was big in the 60's . There's an enormous, unused generator in the Nevada desert that can charge up something like 50 people at one time.
I watch Ghostbusters II every New Year's. It's a total unappreciated gem. Suffers from trying to be too similar to the first (the team starts separated, Dana being victim of paranormal activity, busting a ghost in the mid point followed by a montage), but it is still entertaining. The characters have good chemistry. The production value is high. The effects/puppet work are great. As a kid, I was scared shitless by Vego. Totally solid film.
That's an awesome tradition! Yeah Vego was creepy. I love practical effects so I enjoyed the puppets too even if they didn't look quite as good. It's like an evil muppet episode 😂
I can't believe I never watched it as a kid. I saw the first one so many times. But it was cool to finally see the sequel for the first time as an adult
The slime is like the internet on social media. It has no emotion, until we give it our own opinions. There was an Ai on Social Media they had to be shut off because shortly after it was just angry, as that is what it learned on comments written within Social Media. This movie needs to be watched NOW if you think of the slime as a metaphor for Social Media.
That is an awesome analogy! I remember that experiment too, I think it was a Microsoft AI chatbot that learned our negative behavior. If I remember, it came up with its own shorthand language. The programmers could no longer tell what it was saying so they got nervous and shut it down. Really interesting experiment.
Watching them together, Ghostbusters 2's biggest issue is that it sands all of the edges off of the original to be more kid friendly. It's still very much Ghostbusters, but the problem is that it is more "Real Ghostbusters" and less original movie Ghostbusters.
🤨How is it more kid friendly? I mean the bathtub tries to eat Dana and her baby, her baby gets kidnapped by a ghost off the ledge of a building, the underground Slime tries to consume Ray, Virgo tries to burn Ray and Egon alive, a lady's fur coat comes back to life and attacks her, the titanic arrives with a line of ghosts disembarking, the underground tunnel alone with all the zombie heads on the spike is scary enough and Dana's baby carriage goes rolling into traffic with her baby still in it. Heck, Slimer makes less of an appearance in the 2nd film than he did in the 1st.
@@MultiStormywaters That's all minor things. It's ridiculous to compare the 2nd film to the cartoon show when they still have swearing and sexual innuendos being made in the movie while the kid show doesn't. That's like saying Terminator 2 is kid friendly simply cause it stars a kid. Smh.
Never got the hate for this movie, Robocop 2 and Predator 2. They're all good movies, it's just that the originals are great so they make the sequels look bad. But they're not.
Yeah, I really don't understand why people wouldn't have liked Ghostbusters 2 if they liked the first one. Even the statue of Liberty scene that I've heard the most complaints about is only a small moment in the movie and not as bad as I had been led to believe. I remember struggling to get into Predator 2 but I should give it another shot. My movie tastes have changed over time, maybe I would appreciate it more now.
The one thing I really like about 2 over 1 is they do right by Louis. In the first, Dana and Louis suffer the same fate, but while Dana gets to bask in the celebration, Louis gets whisked away. In the second movie, he gets to be sort of an honorary Ghostbuser and even hailed as a hero, even though his efforts were fruitless, just convenient timing. And that was nice he gets some reconciliation for how he was treated in the first.
Yeah, when I rewatched the first Ghostbusters as an adult, I was surprised at how minor his character was. I had sworn he became a ghostbuster in the first film, but I was probably remembering clips from the sequel. In hindsight he's such an important character and actor from that era, it's weird to see him play only a minor role in the original.
I still, to this day, enjoy Ghostbusters II better than the original. Despite so many people telling me "its just the same story",... yeah, it is,... but BETTER. The original may have some iconic moments... but really, that's all it had. Beyond that, it was just Bill Murray Murraying, Harold Ramis Ramising, and Dan Aykroyd Aykroyding. I felt ZERO chemistry what-so-ever between Peter and Dana (in fact, Venkman just came off as creepy... which was kinda his deal in the early 80's with regards to getting with the girl at the end), I felt no real impending threat from the eventual villain, and so much simple misunderstanding that could have been avoided if people just... y'know, COMMUNICATE (especially between Venkman (big shock) and Walter Peck). Then along came Ghostbusters II. Peter and Dana actually felt like not only were they a former couple and actually experienced those struggles, but that they both still actually cared for each other. The threats felt real, as not only did we know the villain and his goal early on, but there were actually obstacles along the way (particularly in the subway). Also, when they were arrested (both times, lol), they were for actual legitimate reasons that anyone would be arrested for without question. Even the appearance of the ghosts had more of a storyline reason for being there, and many of them had a purpose in what they were and why they were there (the Scoleri brothers at the court where they were sentenced to death, the Titanic arriving at pier 34, Fiorello La Guardia at the mayor's estate, and so forth). And then there's the slime, not only playing into the overall threat, but the tests to get a positive reaction and toaster coming into play for the eventual solution. It just all tied together so well, while in the original film the Ghostbusters just kinda bumble their way into it, often with no real plan at all. The only thing that was in Ghostbusters I that I wish was in Ghostbusters II was the visual effects. The visuals of the proton packs firing felt stronger and like they had far more weight in the hands of the Ghostbusters, whereas in the sequel it felt comparatively weak and cartoony. Plus, it got on my nerves how they had to include the chime every time they fired, when that was just supposed to be the powerup sound.
I noticed the problem with the FX too. I could still appreciate it as 80's charm but it definitely stuck out. I agree on the relationship in the first film. I was asking myself, "am I supposed to be rooting for them to get together?" Because nothing in the first film told me they would be a good match for each other.
@@moviesarespiritual much less her actually giving in to him at the end. What was the last scene they shared together as themselves before the end? Setting up the date outside of the theater and mentioning Gozer for the first time in the entire film. Even then, she acted like she was fed up with him. And even at the end of the film, she goes in for the kiss... and then Bill Murray starts pulling back as if "okay, enough with the kissing already"
Yeah, I agree, it felt like she fell for him just because he saved her life. I guess a lot of movies did that at the time but better character and relationship development is probably expected these days
Exactly! I tell people all the time that the 2nd film is basically just a refinement of the 1st film's story. The story flows way smoother than the 1st because everything ties in together. In addition, to the Peter and Dana relationship being better, the other characters are used much better in this film as well. Winston, Janine and Louis all get bigger roles to play this time around while Janosz steals the show, the special effects are much better which makes it scarier and the music is better if not for the soundtrack, simply for the score. Lastly the jokes are arguably better. Just because the 2nd film doesn't stray to much from the formula of the 1st doesn't make it inferior. It practically improves on the 1st film in every way. Their 1st time using the equipment in the 2nd film against with the Scalari Bros easily trumps their 1st battle using the equipment against Slimer.
@@blueblur2273 I will disagree with the effects being better, at least with regards to the proton streams. They looked considerably stronger in the first film, but felt weak in the second. But that's just my own personal preference on animation, essentially. Everything else, I agree with you on. The first film's score may be more iconic (so much so that they used it in Ghostbusters Afterlife as well), but I personally enjoy GB2's score more. I also like the music choices better in the second film as well :3
This is an awesome analysis. I saw Ghostbusters 2 as a kid before the original, so I think it's the better movie. I also understand that's a bias and a pretty unpopular opinion. I think Bill Murray was given more freedom to just ham it up in the sequel and his performance is my favorite part of both movies
It was awesome what they did with Murray's character in this sequel. I felt like Ghostbusters 2 was less predictable than the first one, so I think that kept me engaged more. Even though the first one is a classic, once you know the plot it doesn't have as much replay value in my opinion. In the sequel I thought the idea of a slime that feeds off of the emotions of the public was an interesting idea. It actually feels very relevant right now.
Just found your guys' channel and earned a sub simply based on the fact that you guys defend Ghostbusters 2. Great movie! Edit: I definitely do not agree with the 'so bad it's good' sentiment for the film. It's genuinely great in my opinion.
Thank you, welcome to the channel! Yeah, I should clarify that a little because I only feel that way about the villain. In the 80's though he probably would have been viewed as a stronger villain than by today's movie standards. Everything else seems like it could have fit right into the first film, so I do still feel it's a great 80's film overall.
Its a very special movie to me as it was the first movie i seen in cinemas when i was 5. I loved ghostbusters the movie and cartoon, so by the time this came out i couldn't wait to see it. I think its every bit as good as the first one, some parts are even better. Preferred vigo, and the build up to him all through the film. The only thing that kind of lets it down as an adult, is that you see its basically a copy of the first one in many ways, beat for beat. But its a highly enjoyable movie
Yeah, they do redo some plot points of the first one. Still fun though! I thought I remembered slimer playing a bigger role in the original movies but he wasn't there much. I think I thought that because I had seen him in the cartoon so much! I enjoyed the cartoon and had the backpack zapper as a kid!
I will never get the made to be more kid friendly comments. I mean I do understand a few things, Slimer's role and Janine's appearance maybe but beyond that yeah there are the subway heads on pikes, the slime filled bath tub and ghost nanny Janosz just to name a few of the things that are honestly more terrifying than the first film!
Yeah I could see those scenes scaring a kid! My guess it's because the villain went for more of a "campy" style, but yeah, overall it doesn't seem made for kids
Completely agree. I'm not sure what these people are watching. Slimmer has less screen time in the 2nd film than he does in the 1st, while Janine is trying to have sex with Louis while babysitting. I guess these people think that because there is a baby in the film it makes the movie less scary but in reality the baby being in the film made it more scary. I mean they had the baby and it's mother almost get eaten by the tub, it was hurled into traffic in it's stroller and it was kidnapped by ghost on the ledge of a building. Virgo almost dropped the kid on the floor for christ sakes! That's not mention the other stuff like Virgo trying to burn Ray and Egon alive, or the Titanic docking or a ladies fur coat coming to life and attacking her. The 2nd film actually has more scare scenes than the 1st.
Completely agree. It follows the same plot as the 1st film but it refines it and the film flows a lot smoother. The special effects are better which helps make the film more scarier. They make far better use of the side characters than they did in the 1st(Winston, Janine and Louis all get bigger parts while Janosz steals the show), the fight scenes with the ghosts are better, the music and score are better and the jokes are arguably better than the 1st one.
There is some funny dialogue in GB2 thanks to Bill's scenes, and Vigo's picture was genuinely scary. Ghostbusters always worked better though when it was just fun and silly SNL level nonsense and not trying to say anything moral (e.g. "be nice to others and we defeat the slime"). We just want to see weird things, some genuinely scary things, funny things that are plain silly, and have a good laugh, goofball around, and make wisecracks about it. That's all Ghostbusters has to be. The newer Ghostbusters films take it almost too serious, and it just ruins it. Without a Han Solo like character who is almost self-aware he is in a comedy movie, it's just not the same. Bill Murray 's comedy almost carries both movies singlehandedly.
Haha that reminds me of the worst part of Ghostbusters 2 (a film I still liked overall). There's a line when they're in the statue of Liberty about winning with the power of love or something. I totally groaned out loud when I saw that part! If they just took that one line out it would improve the entire climax
Not really just that every movie since sucked. It's like saying the Star Wars prequel is suddenly good because the Disney trilogy was pants. As my British friends would say, objectionably terrible.
The first 30 minutes has some of the funniest moments and dialog of both films. Its a well written story. And i find i watch it more than the first.
I actually felt more invested in Ghostbusters 2 this time because I have seen the first one so many times, but couldn't remember the sequel.
The slime is a reference to the Orgone experiments. Orgone is a physical manifestation of organic bio electric energy. It's like an ecto plasm. They used to make orgone generators that were supposed to create the stuff for refueling. It was big in the 60's . There's an enormous, unused generator in the Nevada desert that can charge up something like 50 people at one time.
I watch Ghostbusters II every New Year's. It's a total unappreciated gem. Suffers from trying to be too similar to the first (the team starts separated, Dana being victim of paranormal activity, busting a ghost in the mid point followed by a montage), but it is still entertaining. The characters have good chemistry. The production value is high. The effects/puppet work are great. As a kid, I was scared shitless by Vego. Totally solid film.
That's an awesome tradition! Yeah Vego was creepy. I love practical effects so I enjoyed the puppets too even if they didn't look quite as good. It's like an evil muppet episode 😂
I really enjoyed that movie and watched it many times when it was released to home video. It is a good movie.
I can't believe I never watched it as a kid. I saw the first one so many times. But it was cool to finally see the sequel for the first time as an adult
The slime is like the internet on social media. It has no emotion, until we give it our own opinions. There was an Ai on Social Media they had to be shut off because shortly after it was just angry, as that is what it learned on comments written within Social Media.
This movie needs to be watched NOW if you think of the slime as a metaphor for Social Media.
That is an awesome analogy! I remember that experiment too, I think it was a Microsoft AI chatbot that learned our negative behavior. If I remember, it came up with its own shorthand language. The programmers could no longer tell what it was saying so they got nervous and shut it down. Really interesting experiment.
Watching them together, Ghostbusters 2's biggest issue is that it sands all of the edges off of the original to be more kid friendly. It's still very much Ghostbusters, but the problem is that it is more "Real Ghostbusters" and less original movie Ghostbusters.
🤨How is it more kid friendly? I mean the bathtub tries to eat Dana and her baby, her baby gets kidnapped by a ghost off the ledge of a building, the underground Slime tries to consume Ray, Virgo tries to burn Ray and Egon alive, a lady's fur coat comes back to life and attacks her, the titanic arrives with a line of ghosts disembarking, the underground tunnel alone with all the zombie heads on the spike is scary enough and Dana's baby carriage goes rolling into traffic with her baby still in it. Heck, Slimer makes less of an appearance in the 2nd film than he did in the 1st.
@@blueblur2273 They're not smoking, swearing as much, or depicting sexual encounters with ghosts.
@@MultiStormywaters That's all minor things. It's ridiculous to compare the 2nd film to the cartoon show when they still have swearing and sexual innuendos being made in the movie while the kid show doesn't. That's like saying Terminator 2 is kid friendly simply cause it stars a kid. Smh.
Never got the hate for this movie, Robocop 2 and Predator 2.
They're all good movies, it's just that the originals are great so they make the sequels look bad.
But they're not.
Yeah, I really don't understand why people wouldn't have liked Ghostbusters 2 if they liked the first one. Even the statue of Liberty scene that I've heard the most complaints about is only a small moment in the movie and not as bad as I had been led to believe. I remember struggling to get into Predator 2 but I should give it another shot. My movie tastes have changed over time, maybe I would appreciate it more now.
The one thing I really like about 2 over 1 is they do right by Louis. In the first, Dana and Louis suffer the same fate, but while Dana gets to bask in the celebration, Louis gets whisked away. In the second movie, he gets to be sort of an honorary Ghostbuser and even hailed as a hero, even though his efforts were fruitless, just convenient timing. And that was nice he gets some reconciliation for how he was treated in the first.
Yeah, when I rewatched the first Ghostbusters as an adult, I was surprised at how minor his character was. I had sworn he became a ghostbuster in the first film, but I was probably remembering clips from the sequel. In hindsight he's such an important character and actor from that era, it's weird to see him play only a minor role in the original.
I still, to this day, enjoy Ghostbusters II better than the original. Despite so many people telling me "its just the same story",... yeah, it is,... but BETTER.
The original may have some iconic moments... but really, that's all it had. Beyond that, it was just Bill Murray Murraying, Harold Ramis Ramising, and Dan Aykroyd Aykroyding. I felt ZERO chemistry what-so-ever between Peter and Dana (in fact, Venkman just came off as creepy... which was kinda his deal in the early 80's with regards to getting with the girl at the end), I felt no real impending threat from the eventual villain, and so much simple misunderstanding that could have been avoided if people just... y'know, COMMUNICATE (especially between Venkman (big shock) and Walter Peck).
Then along came Ghostbusters II. Peter and Dana actually felt like not only were they a former couple and actually experienced those struggles, but that they both still actually cared for each other. The threats felt real, as not only did we know the villain and his goal early on, but there were actually obstacles along the way (particularly in the subway). Also, when they were arrested (both times, lol), they were for actual legitimate reasons that anyone would be arrested for without question. Even the appearance of the ghosts had more of a storyline reason for being there, and many of them had a purpose in what they were and why they were there (the Scoleri brothers at the court where they were sentenced to death, the Titanic arriving at pier 34, Fiorello La Guardia at the mayor's estate, and so forth). And then there's the slime, not only playing into the overall threat, but the tests to get a positive reaction and toaster coming into play for the eventual solution. It just all tied together so well, while in the original film the Ghostbusters just kinda bumble their way into it, often with no real plan at all.
The only thing that was in Ghostbusters I that I wish was in Ghostbusters II was the visual effects. The visuals of the proton packs firing felt stronger and like they had far more weight in the hands of the Ghostbusters, whereas in the sequel it felt comparatively weak and cartoony. Plus, it got on my nerves how they had to include the chime every time they fired, when that was just supposed to be the powerup sound.
I noticed the problem with the FX too. I could still appreciate it as 80's charm but it definitely stuck out. I agree on the relationship in the first film. I was asking myself, "am I supposed to be rooting for them to get together?" Because nothing in the first film told me they would be a good match for each other.
@@moviesarespiritual much less her actually giving in to him at the end. What was the last scene they shared together as themselves before the end? Setting up the date outside of the theater and mentioning Gozer for the first time in the entire film. Even then, she acted like she was fed up with him.
And even at the end of the film, she goes in for the kiss... and then Bill Murray starts pulling back as if "okay, enough with the kissing already"
Yeah, I agree, it felt like she fell for him just because he saved her life. I guess a lot of movies did that at the time but better character and relationship development is probably expected these days
Exactly! I tell people all the time that the 2nd film is basically just a refinement of the 1st film's story. The story flows way smoother than the 1st because everything ties in together. In addition, to the Peter and Dana relationship being better, the other characters are used much better in this film as well. Winston, Janine and Louis all get bigger roles to play this time around while Janosz steals the show, the special effects are much better which makes it scarier and the music is better if not for the soundtrack, simply for the score. Lastly the jokes are arguably better. Just because the 2nd film doesn't stray to much from the formula of the 1st doesn't make it inferior. It practically improves on the 1st film in every way. Their 1st time using the equipment in the 2nd film against with the Scalari Bros easily trumps their 1st battle using the equipment against Slimer.
@@blueblur2273 I will disagree with the effects being better, at least with regards to the proton streams. They looked considerably stronger in the first film, but felt weak in the second. But that's just my own personal preference on animation, essentially.
Everything else, I agree with you on. The first film's score may be more iconic (so much so that they used it in Ghostbusters Afterlife as well), but I personally enjoy GB2's score more. I also like the music choices better in the second film as well :3
This is an awesome analysis. I saw Ghostbusters 2 as a kid before the original, so I think it's the better movie. I also understand that's a bias and a pretty unpopular opinion. I think Bill Murray was given more freedom to just ham it up in the sequel and his performance is my favorite part of both movies
It was awesome what they did with Murray's character in this sequel. I felt like Ghostbusters 2 was less predictable than the first one, so I think that kept me engaged more. Even though the first one is a classic, once you know the plot it doesn't have as much replay value in my opinion. In the sequel I thought the idea of a slime that feeds off of the emotions of the public was an interesting idea. It actually feels very relevant right now.
Just found your guys' channel and earned a sub simply based on the fact that you guys defend Ghostbusters 2. Great movie!
Edit: I definitely do not agree with the 'so bad it's good' sentiment for the film. It's genuinely great in my opinion.
Thank you, welcome to the channel! Yeah, I should clarify that a little because I only feel that way about the villain. In the 80's though he probably would have been viewed as a stronger villain than by today's movie standards. Everything else seems like it could have fit right into the first film, so I do still feel it's a great 80's film overall.
Its a very special movie to me as it was the first movie i seen in cinemas when i was 5. I loved ghostbusters the movie and cartoon, so by the time this came out i couldn't wait to see it. I think its every bit as good as the first one, some parts are even better. Preferred vigo, and the build up to him all through the film. The only thing that kind of lets it down as an adult, is that you see its basically a copy of the first one in many ways, beat for beat. But its a highly enjoyable movie
Yeah, they do redo some plot points of the first one. Still fun though! I thought I remembered slimer playing a bigger role in the original movies but he wasn't there much. I think I thought that because I had seen him in the cartoon so much! I enjoyed the cartoon and had the backpack zapper as a kid!
@@moviesarespiritual that's awesome dude.
I will never get the made to be more kid friendly comments. I mean I do understand a few things, Slimer's role and Janine's appearance maybe but beyond that yeah there are the subway heads on pikes, the slime filled bath tub and ghost nanny Janosz just to name a few of the things that are honestly more terrifying than the first film!
Yeah I could see those scenes scaring a kid! My guess it's because the villain went for more of a "campy" style, but yeah, overall it doesn't seem made for kids
Completely agree. I'm not sure what these people are watching. Slimmer has less screen time in the 2nd film than he does in the 1st, while Janine is trying to have sex with Louis while babysitting. I guess these people think that because there is a baby in the film it makes the movie less scary but in reality the baby being in the film made it more scary. I mean they had the baby and it's mother almost get eaten by the tub, it was hurled into traffic in it's stroller and it was kidnapped by ghost on the ledge of a building. Virgo almost dropped the kid on the floor for christ sakes! That's not mention the other stuff like Virgo trying to burn Ray and Egon alive, or the Titanic docking or a ladies fur coat coming to life and attacking her. The 2nd film actually has more scare scenes than the 1st.
2 is far better than 1
Completely agree. It follows the same plot as the 1st film but it refines it and the film flows a lot smoother. The special effects are better which helps make the film more scarier. They make far better use of the side characters than they did in the 1st(Winston, Janine and Louis all get bigger parts while Janosz steals the show), the fight scenes with the ghosts are better, the music and score are better and the jokes are arguably better than the 1st one.
There is some funny dialogue in GB2 thanks to Bill's scenes, and Vigo's picture was genuinely scary. Ghostbusters always worked better though when it was just fun and silly SNL level nonsense and not trying to say anything moral (e.g. "be nice to others and we defeat the slime"). We just want to see weird things, some genuinely scary things, funny things that are plain silly, and have a good laugh, goofball around, and make wisecracks about it. That's all Ghostbusters has to be. The newer Ghostbusters films take it almost too serious, and it just ruins it. Without a Han Solo like character who is almost self-aware he is in a comedy movie, it's just not the same. Bill Murray 's comedy almost carries both movies singlehandedly.
Haha that reminds me of the worst part of Ghostbusters 2 (a film I still liked overall). There's a line when they're in the statue of Liberty about winning with the power of love or something. I totally groaned out loud when I saw that part! If they just took that one line out it would improve the entire climax
summed up at 3 min mark
Not really just that every movie since sucked. It's like saying the Star Wars prequel is suddenly good because the Disney trilogy was pants. As my British friends would say, objectionably terrible.
How can you mention Wilhelm without a Mouth of Madness reference? Is everyone a fraud NPC on youtube?