WI: Ghostbusters II Came Earlier

Ghostbusters II is not a bad film. However, it was a bit lackluster, and certainly left a sour taste in the mouth of the people involved and the fans, which delayed further sequels indefinitely. Bill Murray is the most important person to be displeased by the film, because he was disappointed at the comedy to such a point where he was reluctant to do another, which resulted in no third film. It has been criticized as too close to the story of the first film, and not having the same quality or 'magic' as the first film. I believe Dan Aykroyd has said they waited too long to do the sequel, and did not capture the momentum and interest that was there after the first film, and that was a problem. The film came out in 1989, which was 5 years after the first. Certainly, that is one of the jokes in the film: they are doing a kids birthday party, and kids could care less because they're old news.

What if Ghostbusters II came about earlier? In traditional Hollywood fashion, one could assume roughly two years after the first film, for a release date of perhaps 1986.
 
It would probably follow the storyline of the 2009 Ghostbusters Playstation 3 game, minus The Rookie, and be called Ghostbusters II: Gozer's Revenge.

Whether or not it would have been better or worse is dependent on a lot of variables, but it would probably butterfly away the first three seasons of The Real Ghostbusters as we know them, and severely alter the fortunes of James Michael Straczyncki.
 
I'd personally call it Shandor's Revenge (If it isn't just GBIII) because the 2009 game ended with an empowered Shandor as the final boss. Besides having the film end with Stay-Puft again would feel like too much of a retread of the first.
 
I think the positive point of the OTL second film was that it did something different. The animated series, the comics, and other countless media show these are characters and a setting that has a lot to it, and there's a lot of stories that could be told. The problem was that GBII was not different enough. It was too much a rehash of the beats from the first film.
 
I think the positive point of the OTL second film was that it did something different. The animated series, the comics, and other countless media show these are characters and a setting that has a lot to it, and there's a lot of stories that could be told. The problem was that GBII was not different enough. It was too much a rehash of the beats from the first film.
Because columbia was cheap as hell and the cast was under contract the origina idea was an International sequel much like the first draft
 
Personal Note: I have no problem with Ghostbusters II, myself. This is one of those things where you get the internet and look and realize not everyone liked the movie as much as you and that reaction was mixed at the time, and then the internet gets a whole movement going to criticize it more than it ever was before.
 
Because columbia was cheap as hell and the cast was under contract the origina idea was an International sequel much like the first draft

I think it would have worked if there was a franchising element in there, or a competition element in there. Because Ghostbusters was not just the fantastical elements, science vs. ghosts, etc. It was a story about building a business. So maybe it would have worked for a sequel to be about the future expansion of that business.
 
The delay was too long ( a sequel in 1986 or 1987 would have been better), but the bigger problem was the script.

It tried to negate what had gone on before to start back where the first movie began, but any good sequel really needs to accept what happened on the first movie and build the story from there. "The next adventure." There is no problem with there not being active ghosts (because they won), or that there are still skeptics, but given the events they should have become "respectable" figures albeit with their personality flaws. Murray and Weaver should still be a couple as having them fall in love again is just a repeat of what happened before. Advance the story, don't repeat the first one. No kids or babies. People aren't interested in that - it sucks the life and originality of whatever plot they are in a we all know what's going to happen to the baby in the movie. And get a better villain. He was just too pedestrian compared to the pseudo-Lovecraftian elements of the first. If you take out the jokes, the skeleton of Ghostbusters is actually a fairly effective serious horror movie. The second one wasn't.

The Ghostbusters was very original which is a reason for its popularity. Rather than repeat the ghost elements, it might have been better to expand the pseudo-Lovecraftian elements into some other original story. Keep ectoplasm, ESP, and PK meters, but tell a different, creepy story that doesn't cover the same ground. Maybe go more into the Call of Cthulhu direction by playing up an actual Gozer cult, or some "brother to Gozer" as a stand in for the Great Old Ones. Or maybe an extra-dimensional invasion via the ectoplasmic plane, but done by some other horror so you can riff off the Hounds of Tindalos, Mi-Go, or other stories. Don't take "ghost" literally and think hard about the entire occult world that the Ghostbusters are approaching in a "scientific" fashion. Don't even have them stay in New York. It is OK if they traveled to an exotic location around the world, or met with other occult experts from Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.

Above all, use the ectoplasm sparingly and effectively. Yes, Murray getting slimed was one of the best scenes in the first movie, but that doesn't mean slime by itself is hilarious.
 
Ok but why is Ghostbusters II earlier?

IOTL David Puttnam took over Coca-Cola's Columbia studio with a plan not to do sequels or trash. It worked out badly, as one might suspect. Combined with some turmoil before that, late Ghostbusters II.

So for starters the POD requires no Puttnam although that only speeds up Ghostbusters II a little so a better POD is a different earlier/later buyer. This greatly effects a number of Columbia film of the era, with some knock-on effects Hollywood-wide.
 
Top