The Ghostbusters Franchise

Using superheroes as an analogy. Ghostbusters are "adults" in a sense similar to Deadpool, but not something like Watchmen or Logan.

If memory serves, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was the film that induced people to create the PG-13 category. It was released in May 1984, and the new rating was created less than two months afterwards — let's say July.

Ghostbusters was also released in 1984, but in June. So it was rated considerably before PG-13 was an option. If that rating had existed at the time, I'm sure it would have gotten that one — in addition to the erotic ghost dream and sexual innuendo everywhere, parts of the film are genuinely terrifying.

Edited by Melendwyr on Apr 3rd 2024 at 5:03:46 AM

It’s amusing that what passed for edgy, immature mostly-for-adults-but-still-viewable-by-everyone movies in the 80’s and 90’s are basically considered family movies nowadays.

I’d maybe get on board with the idea that Ghostbusters (though only the first one) was mostly intended for an adult audience. But it’s a tame and immature movie that is definitely a kid friendly romp. It’s basically in the same bracket as the first Iron Man movie.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Apr 3rd 2024 at 2:06:33 AM

I mean I was a preteen kid in the early 2000s when I first saw the original Ghostbusters—and my brother who also saw it was slightly younger. Plenty went over our heads and we still loved it. The blowjob scene was funny to me for an entirely different reason back then (that I basically just thought she unzipped his pants, made him squirm and fall and that was it).

And yeah, a PG in 1984. It would definitely be PG-13 today without question.

I mean you look at the two Barry Sonnenfeld Addams Family movies and also the recent Barbie movie and while kids could definitely watch and enjoy them all—my brother and I saw the two Addams Family movies back then too, they weren't really made for kids. Same with the first Ghostbusters.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Apr 3rd 2024 at 2:28:01 AM

The best movies can be enjoyed by people of all ages. It's not nearly as easy to accomplish as it sounds.

Ghostbusters isn't really aimed for adults as much as it is aimed for a slightly older demographic. It's in the same grey area as Superman: The Movie, Jaws, Little Shop of Horrors, and the Indiana Jones series. There's clearly a lot of adult humor that would fly over children's heads, but the premise is something kids love be it superheroes, monsters and adventure.

Looking at R-Rated movies of the day, they're mostly horror movies that emphasized on extreme gore or comedy movies that emphasize on sex.

Little Shop of Horrors isn't aimed at children, or even young teens. It deals with very serious and adult topics in the way that musicals usually do: with absurdity.

It's a weird case where Ghostbusters is probably more suited for children but Little Shop of Horrors is technically more family friendly (less swears, less references to blowjobs). I suppose the difference is Ghostbusters is a family movie (though one from a time where you could get away with more in those) while Horrors is a film that's family-friendly if not necessarily for that demographic (like, say, Jane Austen novels, which are technically appropriate for children but clearly not enjoyable for them).

I understand that several international dubs softened the adult references in many of those movies, so there is that when it comes to foreign audiences. I know Latin American dubs did that regularly, and they did not adapt profanities freely until around the 2000s.

Venkman is my least favorite 'buster, personally. I've always liked Egon the most. For me, it goes: Egon > Winston > Ray > Venkman. It's all relative, though. I really love them all.

And yes, the part was written for John Belushi. The story goes that Bill Murray didn't even commit to the role until he showed up on set unannounced after filming had already started.

The Fantastic Beasts movies are Good, Actually. I'm prepared to die on this hill. As a delivery mechanism for goofy magic shit, they're delightful, even if they ultimately had fuck all to do with the actual beasts. Newt and Jacob are great characters, and Jude Law was a better Dumbledore than Michael Gambon.

They failed because they were caught in the double maelstrom of Depp/Heard and JK Rowling's descent into transphobic madness. Which I guess aren't bad reasons for them to fail? But if they made more, you'd better believe I'd buy a used Blu-Ray from a secondhand shop!

September 11, 2001, is when they won. That's when America retreated into the safety and certainty of nostalgia.

And yet they still haven't made my goddamn Roger Rabbit sequel!

They sorta did a Roger Rabbit sequel, they just called it Rescue Rangers for some unfathomable reason.

Rescue Rangers isn't the worst movie I've seen in my life, but it's definitely the most disappointing. #NotMyRogerRabbit

I'm talking about a real sequel, something that understands the appeal of the original and isn't just a Disney+ commercial. Basically I want Once Upon a Time in Hollywood with Toons.

When was the last time Disney made something really good?

When was the last time Disney made something daring and risky?

Don't hold your breath, my friend. We should be grateful they haven't tried to make a nostalgic reboot of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and ruined it in the process.

Well, it wouldn't be just Disney. Amblin would have to get involved too, and Amblin is the reason the original is so good.

And to answer your question, The Last Jedi. That was the last time Disney hit a homer, although I know not everyone agrees.

There's another element that Dan Akroyd created Ghostbusters because of his own real life obsession with the paranormal, albeit in a Hollywood eccentric sort of way rather than more weird psuedoscience ways.

Harold Ramis took a very strange time traveling-dimension hopping script and made it into Ghostbusters.

Huh?

I’d be perhaps willing to accept that there’s a point in American history where music became mostly fixed to a set of general genres that haven’t changed since - but even so, that’s a super huge generalization and if it wasn’t there’s no way it happened anywhere near as late as 2003.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Apr 4th 2024 at 11:52:26 AM

So on the Double Toasted stream last night, they talked about how they picked up on the implied romantic subtext between Phoebe and Melody when seeing the movie. Check here:

Sorry if I didn't do it right. First time trying to embed a link. Just checked and now i KNOW i didn't do it right.

Hang on...

Bull's gonna post it below instead. Never mind.

They were under the impression that Sony vetoed the idea of them making it more than subtext. While I could see that, I think it's because during filming, Mckenna was only almost 17 while Emily was almost 21. Unless it's a hug—which could be taken either way, intimacy scenes aren't filmed in movies or shows if one of two actors/actresses is underage while the other is legal.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Apr 4th 2024 at 3:10:37 AM

Your link isn't working here is the fixed one:

Interesting points. Though I feel like it might have been simply them accidentally making Ho Yay subtext.

I'm all for putting Melody in the containment unit.

Snitches get stitches.

Even if they make a Heel–Face Turn

I mean she is no longer around to put in one. Also she didn't really snitch but more tricked.

Tbf the containment unit doesn't even seem the worst place to live considering it's an entire dimension and you can converse with people.

Curious is their any reason for why their abilities don't work inside it that's given?

I never understood what she was even "tricked" by. Like... it really felt like the plot needed a reason for Melody to do the bad guy's bidding, but what the the actual hell made her think Kozakkha was going to return her to her family? Or that that was even possible? How did Kozakkha even contact her if he's been trapped in the prison?

They just... kinda handwaved it to be honest. They needed a reason for Melody to do the things the plot needed her to do. And the betrayal doesn't have much weight because the film knows she'll do the redemption thing later so it doesn't actually have to generate conflict.

She was just that desperate/determined that she trusted Garraka it seems. Also, she probably figured if she didn't do it, Garraka would probably just manipulate/control her to do it instead and he wouldn't help her if he actually was going to (which he probably wasn't gonna anyway, but again, she was that determined/desperate though).

Maybe it would've made more sense if Melody was from Garraka's time instead of a contemporary teen. Someone who'd been doing his bidding for centuries.

Also, is it me, or did Garraka kinda get the short end of the stick? He promised his people power and actually delivered. According to Patton Oswalt's lore dump, they just kinda turned paranoid and sicced the Firemasters on him for no reason once they had what they wanted. Garraka is the jilted party here.

In my Urban Fantasy novels, I noted that demons are far less likely to break contracts than humans who make Deals With The Devil.

Because the people who do that sort of thing are invariably the kind that never intend to live up to their promises.