Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

I would assume that he found out about it on his own somehow (maybe a mutual friend was at the bar in question and saw her go off with the guy) and she concocted the excuse that she'd been mind-whammied by an alien who took him to his motel room in order to inform her about the Valentine's Day Apocalypse of 2016. And I would assume he was dumb enough to believe it, considering that she kept telling the story.

 

Not so blatant, but the first movie had a couple sly adult jokes, i.e. the Gatekeeper being female and the Keymaster being male (insertion!); or when the boys confront Gozer, Peter leads them into one long analogy about grabbing, stimulating, and erecting their penises via their neutrona wands. Worded well enough to go over kids' (and most adults') heads, but the clues are definitely there. And definitely funnier and smarter than if they used obvious dick jokes like Porky's.

Even on the non-adult side, Egon telling Peter what to charge the hotel manager for capturing Slimer, or Vinz Clortho/Louis imitating Egon's mannerisms, meant the writers were more than capable of sneaking things in. The subtle humor is part of what makes the movie so good with repeated viewings.

But we're also talking about writers that had Peter bring thorazine on a date. No, I don't think the writers had malicious intent nor to paint him as a creep, and obviously they had Peter use it for legitimate medical assistance to advance the plot, but he still had it nonetheless.

 

Yeah, but they weren't implied rape jokes. It's not about whether the joke is risque, but whether it's dark and cruel. Of course there's sexual innuendo in Ghostbusters -- Bill Murray's in it, so how could there not be? -- but I don't believe they were trying to make a joke at the expense of a rape victim.

 

I wasn't old enough in the 80s at the time, but conversations around rape and consent were definitely different back then -- law enforcement didn't start truly investigating patterns of rape via drugs until the mid-90s, well after the movie, and conversations around rape took a major turn. I feel like being aware of the harm of jokes at the expense of rape victims is in itself a fairly recent phenomenon as well, but implied rape jokes still happens in even seemingly more innocent productions. A Yosemite Sam cartoon in 1995's Carrotblanca had Sam under threat for a prison rape joke -- an all-ages cartoon created after GB2. The PG-rated Puss in Boots in 2011 had Humpty Dumpty talking about rape as "it ain't over easy." So I'd still think it's possible, no matter how harmless the intent. Neither of those cartoons are anywhere near Porky's.

An earlier draft of the script had Elaine as one of three women who claimed to have outright sex with an alien, but it still kept Elaine's line of her going under mind control and being iffy on the details. The mix of the alien keeping human form, the sex, the drinks, and the hazy memories is even stronger there, as there is no mention of a spouse or SO to cheat on in the first place, so no infidelity to cover up. Before it was common knowledge via awareness campaigns and ed programs, it was common for victims to not believe they were drugged in the first place. I'm also reading her lines as if she has more conviction, since she's listed as aggressive and shaking her head vigorously -- not nervous and sheepish like the final version.

There's a second woman who also claims to have an alien sexual encounter and no mention of a husband, though she in fairness she seems either even wonkier or suffering worse under drugs. My guess is that a later draft added in the husband and made Elaine more nervous to remove that implication, but removing the second woman meant there'd be room to add Milton and his foreshadowing more than further removing that implication. But if the husband was added to remove it, then it could mean there was awareness of what the joke could truly imply.

 

Sure, theoretically it's possible, but I've already explained in great detail why I'm convinced it's not actually the case. This is getting circular.

Probably so, but that just proves my point that the joke as presented in the film was not about a woman being roofied. Trying out ideas and abandoning or changing the ones that don't work is a routine part of the writing process -- especially comedy writing, since coming up with genuinely funny jokes usually requires wading through a lot of lame or inappropriate ones. The only ones that count are the ones that actually survive the weeding process and end up onscreen.

 

I'm just thinking, it may not be a matter of dark or evil or malicious intent, but simply just not taking it seriously, or dismissing something serious as something light, which is common in older humor. But we *were* talking about writer's intent, which fuels what goes on screen. As it is, there were enough elements carried on between draft to screen that set off a couple red flags for me, before I was even aware of the draft's version.

As it is, I don't think their intent was dark, but lack of intent by making light of something and not taking it seriously (like stumbling upon, like you said, inappropriate jokes). These things happen in fiction, but you don't need to be intentionally dark to remove seriousness from something.

 

^And yes, I've acknowledged that I understand why you see those resonances in the joke, but I've explained why I don't think that's what the joke is supposed to be about in its final form.

 

I acknowledge that what it is in its final form is different; the edits from the draft point that way and the final scene is definitely more refined than the draft, though obviously there was enough in the final scene to motivate me to dig further. I'm just a little shocked at finding a harsher version of Elaine's situation that -- to me -- points towards taking lightly something that we consider serious today, and that the potential was there in the first place.

 

And to clarify, no I don't think Ramis or Aykroyd are heartless monsters; at a certain point, we can't fault people in the past for not knowing about what passes for today. Whatever the intent, scale vs. understanding is one thing and everyone comes from different places of understanding. I do imagine, though, that they'd be great to play Cards Against Humanity with.

 

This has been riveting, but here's the trailer for the new movie:

 

That looks fantastic! They also weren't kidding when they said they were going to edge a little closer to the horror side of things. Some of that stuff looked legitimately creepy.

Also, *slap* "the power of Patti compels you!"

 

I've kept an open mind on this (I like but don't love the original and like but don't love Feig's other work with some of the cast members). I wanted to like the trailer but found it a bit underwhelming, to be honest. I don't think it brought much new to the concept. Almost a little too faithful to the original, I'd say.

 

Good trailer and it was nice to see Slimer again.

 

I just watched the trailer a second time, and the jokes and comedic bits stood out more for me than they did the first time.

I can already tell that Kate McKinnon's Jillian Holtzmann is going to be the standout for me just based on the scene where she's lurking about in a silly hat and the scene where she licks her guns "wild west"-style.

 

I wasn't bowled over, but it seems promising. I hope the movie does well, because we need more female scientist heroes in the movies. (Although it bugs me that they stuck with the 30-year-old paradigm of three white scientists and one streetwise black layperson. I always felt Winston was too much of a second-tier character in the movies, although The Real Ghostbusters did a great job with him by making him a full equal lead and the most level-headed, sensible character in the bunch.)

 

^ I suppose given how well Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens did by replicating the first films in their respective series, we shouldn't be overly surprised when another film looking to revive a franchise also replicates a winning formula.

 

I'm a little disheartened that the trailer would start off with the text about the original team 30 years ago -- I was still hoping that this would be a sequel rather than a reboot, despite everything Feig says (though I understand the logic of wanting ghosts to be a new threat once again).

Though -- HEY! The said four scientists saved NYC -- if they counted Winston as a scientist, then that's great! After all, he's seen shit that would turn us white

With that said, I'm looking forward to McKinnon's character for sure. The proton stream graphics remain intact and updated (plus the neat trick of McCarthy's glasses reflecting the stream), though I hope the sound effects remain or are suitably updated a la JJTrek. The proton pistols and McCarthy's fist-mounted proton "puncher" look like they came from the IDW comics, so naturally I hope they did, and I could swear that Wiig fires something like a Boson dart from the 2007 game. The ghosts look GREAT -- it's nice to see the team going up against something akin to Death Eaters, and I very much hope they fight giant ghosts.

Content-wise, it seems like Wiig is the most lowkey of them all, which in a way would be a subtle but important change if she's a leader analogous to Venkman -- so not a deadpanner or witty, but funny because of something like awkwardness.

Agreed all around. She probably has a much bigger role than Winston comparatively, but that also means that hopefully they'll use that room to develop her as more than (insert team role here), just like the cartoon. But it's Feig, so I think she'll be fleshed out properly, unlike Winston.

The big difference there is that Jurassic World and the Force Awakens are sequels, whereas this is a reboot. Feig has his reasons for doing a reboot, though I'd love nothing more than a Ghostbusters sequel, starring these four actresses but building off of what the originals did.

Then again, Ghostbusters 2 repeated so much from the first movie, too.

 

Honestly, I had the opposite reaction to the 30 years ago bit. Until then I thought this was a reboot where the original movies never happened.

 

Not overly impressed but will wait and see.
That 30 years ago bit might just be for the trailer.

 

It's still a full reboot. The trailer text is to hype up audiences to establish its nostalgic connection to the original (nothing wrong with that).

My disappointment is that it's not a sequel, but a reboot. I think a sequel with this cast and crew would have been terrific. It's not a dealbreaker, though; I still intend to watch this movie in theaters.