MovieChat Forums > Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) Discussion > Why are they ignoring part 2?

Why are they ignoring part 2?

posted 3 years ago by enriquesingh (1810)
31 replies | jump to latest

What does it have to do with this story? Like how if those events had taken place would they influence this one?

I understand that part 1 is like lightning in a bottle, but I consider part 2 to be an above average sequel for being made in the 80s when a lot of sequels were just rehashed versions of their original... GB2 had original villains and kept expanding their "universe".

My favorite line out of part 2 is: SUCK IN THE GUT GUYS WE ARE THE GHOSTBUSTERS!

*Edit, Jason Reitman was asked this question and came out with a somewhat bs answer that they are not ignoring part 2 just that "...nobody knows Ghostbusters 2 outside of Vigo the Carpathian and the Ghostbusters II logo."

[–] Kowalski (75695) 3 years ago

PART 2 WHILE ENJOYABLE FOR PARTS IS WELL KNOWN FOR BEING RUSHED,FORCED,FILMED ALMOST AGAINST THE WILL AND WITHOUT A COHESIVE PERFORMANCE BY BILL MURRAY AND ULTIMATELY ENDING UP BEING THE KIND OF SEQUEL PEOPLE ANTICIPATE AND SKIP THESE DAYS.

[–] FilmBuff (7238) 3 years ago

Quit fooling yourself. Part 2 was complete shit. It was a handful of bits strung loosely together with a plot that was a thinly veiled rehash of the first film. It had no narrative structure whatsoever, no development of any characters, and plodded along to a predictable, uninteresting finale. Why pretend otherwise?

The first film is a masterful blend of sci-fi, horror, and humor; the sequel is unwatchable.

[–] Kowalski (75695) 3 years ago

I WOULDN'T SAY UNWATCHABLE...BUT OVERALL,I VERY MUCH AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT.

[–] FilmBuff (7238) 3 years ago

Maybe unwatchable is a bit much. I watched it yesterday for the first time since seeing it in a theater in 1989. I did fall asleep for the middle 30 minutes or so...

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

I watched it a few years ago for the first time in a while, it's pretty fucking funny. GB always has good mythology too.

[–] sut6432 (2908) 3 years ago

Can’t disagree with you and KOWALSKI more than I do. I love the sequel! There were a few times I laughed harder than the original. It’s obviously not as good as the original, but it’s a damn good sequel in my opinion, and is ridiculously underrated.

Loved the scene where they were digging the hole in the street and were questioned by the cops.

“I’d like to run some gynecological tests on the mother.” “Who wouldn’t?” “Let’s check the street.” 😂

Winston in the tunnel was hysterical.

Louis in the courtroom being their lawyer was damn near the best part of the movie. “But I don’t blame them, because one time I turned into a dog and they helped me. Thank you.” 🤣

Bill Murray was great the whole movie, and just as witty and funny as the first one.

Yanosh was a great side character.

Ray getting possessed by Vigo was, and still is awesome and creepy!!!

So yeah, I think your assessment is as shitty as YOU think Ghostbusters II is. It’s not only very watchable, it’s one of the better sequels out there.

[–] NitroHangover (1142) 3 years ago

Amen. I agree 100%. I have always considered GB2 to be one of the very few sequels to classics out there that are as good, or arguably even better, than the original. And GB2 is funnier, to me. Every member of the cast was funnier in part 2, yet it still had the same amount of scariness.

[–] NitroHangover (1142) 3 years ago

Plus, that Bobby Brown 'Too Hot to Handle' song? Good grief, I still listen to that on my playlist.

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

They ignore part 2? That is stated?

[–] FilmBuff (7238) 3 years ago

It wasn't outright ignored, but when they discussed the past films, the focus was on the fight with Gozer. It was interesting how they framed it, too. When Rudd is explaining to the kids who the Ghostbusters were, he describes it about the way I assume someone would, had it really happened. He says something along the lines of there being some sort of disputed event where New Yorkers claimed to have seen ghosts, and it ended when four physicists showed up and blew the roof off of a Manhattan building and stopped whatever threat had been in play. He didn't mention that five years later New Yorkers sang Auld Lang Syne to defeat angry pink slime while the Statue of Liberty marched down 5th Avenue, which was probably for the best.

[–] TandyMan (11112) 3 years ago

yeah, the statue of liberty stomping through the streets of NYC would have been WAY more memorable than a building blowing up. kind of silly to ignore that.

[–] FilmBuff (7238) 3 years ago

Kind of silly to include it in a movie. One of a hundred reasons Ghostbusters 2 is trash.

[–] Kowalski (75695) 3 years ago

A PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE CARTOON.

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

I mean, there was a giant marshmallow man walking through the city and it was the first major supernatural event in modern history, sooooo...

[–] MrFilmJunkie (899) 3 years ago

they didn't completely ignore it, ray's bookstore appears in the movie.

[–] elcamino (15540) 3 years ago

Watch the whole thing and see a actress now married to a buster.

[–] Threadkiller (3078) 3 years ago

If this movie does in fact go out of its way to ignore the events of GBII then that's rather disappointing. I never understood the idea that GBII was somehow "less than" the original. I think a lot of people simply put the original on too much of a pedestal because of nostalgia. I actually prefer GBII to the original & I find that it still holds up after seeing it numerous times over the years. I felt that Bill Murray was more likeable & all the guys had even better on screen chemistry with each other in the second film. The sequel also had a way more interesting & scary villain. (Always felt Gozer was kind of silly & way too too 80s)

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Threadkiller is a perfect name for you. Better than the first one, Jesus. And I like Ghostbusters 2, but that's fucking absurd. Did you purposefully choose to say everything that is wrong? Because you managed to do just that.

[–] Bossdog677 (1563) 3 years ago

Ghostbusters 2 is miles away better than the original

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

You should never have another opinion again.

[–] Bossdog677 (1563) 3 years ago

Vigo the Carpathian is the Best Villian of all times, Yanous is the Best Stoolie of all times, they had Rivers of Slime, Ghost Train, The Scaleri Brothers fight is the best in the franchise, they controlled the Statue of Liberty with a frigging NES Advantage and they even somehow managed to have an even more epic soundtrack than the original and might i add Annie Potts went from a granny to a total fox.

The original gave us Marshmallow Man and Slimer but Ghostbusters 2 just totally took the concept and knocked it out of the park. You Boomer Film Purists donn't understand epicness because you are stuck in the 1970's and think movies should still be mudane and boring.

If i had to wager to guess your top three Elm Street movies are 1,3 and 7 but you are hesitant to put three in there but do just because Wes Craven has a credit because you are a tool

[–] rateater (10047) 3 years ago

"the proton pack is not a toy" has been ignored.

[–] sonans (1552) 3 years ago

I don't understand the hate to Part 2, I always think 1 and 2 are equal on quality.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7704) 3 years ago

Me too. I love Ghostbusters 2 almost as much as the original. I dislike there is so much hate at it.

I did like this movie though and thought it was a good continuation.