Main Menu

Ghostbusters

Started by Drezzy, February 07, 2003, 10:51:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1 2
User actions

Drezzy

February 07, 2003, 10:51:03 PM
Wow...this movie is sheer b-movie genius. I just watched it for the first time in roughly 7 months (because I've been on a Ghostbusters binge {EGB cartoon, looking at my old toys, playing the Sega Geneses game, visiting websites}), and...damn.

If there was one mainstream b-movie I'm surprised isn't on this site (aside from Star Wars), it'd be Ghostbusters.

Maybe I need to write a review...mwahaha...

And as the world began crumbling down
Nobody around seemed to care

Funk, E.

#1
February 07, 2003, 11:01:30 PM
Ghostbusters isn't a b-movie. it's an A class comedy. Big name stars, big budget, top notch all the way. I've actually had some small irritation when b movie sites decide to review A movies. I know Nathan of Cold Fusion views this BBS so I'll be gental, but LOTR isn't a B movie so why review it in that context? I've seen a number of specifically b-movie sites take on A class movies and it mildly irks me. Citizen Cane, Casablanca or even Psycho regardless of how you personally feel about them are not b movies they have no place in that catagory. IMHO

Drezzy

#2
February 08, 2003, 12:27:46 AM
I truly think Ghostbusters is a b-movie, but just a successful one. Aykroyd wrote the original script while remembering the old ghost movies of his youth, and it's more of a b-movie in the same sense that Tremors is: a more "A-Class" ode to b-movies. If f**king TITANIC can be considered a b-movie, I don't see why a cheesy movie like Ghostbusters can't be.


Oh, and for the record, I'm more than willing to duke it out over whether or not Ghostbusters is the greatest movie ever made, because I love it so much.

And as the world began crumbling down
Nobody around seemed to care

Fearless Freep

#3
February 08, 2003, 12:39:14 AM
Who said "Titanic" is a b-movie?

No, "Ghostbusters" is not a b-movie.  B movies don't have hit song videos  that stay on MTV for months :)  It may have been in some ways a 'tip of the hat' to certain B movies, but like "Tremors" and "Mars Attacks" it was an A movie in it's own right.

Now "Spaced Invaders" was a B movie homage to B movies :)
=======================
Going places unmapped, to do things unplanned, to people unsuspecting

Flangepart

#4
February 08, 2003, 01:25:41 PM
Can an A picture be a B-movie in effect? Just because it has a big budget, don't protect it from the curse of the worst in B land. It could be a good B story, with a better budget. Any think by Bruckhimer, anyone?

"Aggressivlly eccentric, and proud of it!"

Drezzy

#5
February 08, 2003, 06:14:22 PM
And that line of thinking, Flange, is how I arrived at my decision.

And as the world began crumbling down
Nobody around seemed to care

raj

#6
February 08, 2003, 06:53:21 PM
So then you view the Indiana Jones movies as b-movies?

B-movies did start out as the "undercard" to the main feature.  I would view them as something less than Hollywood's best (not necessarily good, though)  Ghostbusters has a big name cast, (not just, oh, Michael Caine or George Kennedy) and lots of state of the art special effects.  To me, it isn't just the story being told (psycho killer terrorizing teens) but the quality of the production; how polished the actors are, how good the script is-or should be.

Sure some big budget Hollywood movies flop spectacularly, like Ishtar or Heaven's Gate, but they are spectacular flops because we expect more from Universal Studios than Troma or Full Moon.

Anyway, these are my random thoughts.

Ash

#7
February 08, 2003, 07:33:11 PM
I say it just barely hinges on being a B-film.

It had a big budget and major stars in it.  That's the A-side of it.

On the other hand it had that kinda cheesy b-movie feel that stays with it all the way through.

Knowutimean?




Drezzy

#8
February 08, 2003, 10:57:09 PM
Yes, I know exactly what you mean.

But, let's face it. If it had Fred Ward and Bruce Campbell in it instead of Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray, it'd be a b-movie. Might have been a little less successful, but we'd all embrace it as a b-movie.

And as the world began crumbling down
Nobody around seemed to care

Fearless Freep

#9
February 09, 2003, 12:17:22 AM
If it had Fred Ward and Bruce Campbell in it...

..to have had that cast would've meant a lot of other things would've been different and thus it  pobably would've been a true B movie

=======================
Going places unmapped, to do things unplanned, to people unsuspecting

JohnL

#10
February 09, 2003, 04:16:47 PM
>playing the Sega Geneses game

Ugh! I just looked it up on the net and it looks like a typical Sega/NES game with big-headed characters running around. Give me the C64 version any day!

Drezzy

#11
February 09, 2003, 07:08:15 PM
Actually, many Ghostheads consider the Genesis game to be one of the best GB games.

I also want GameBoy Advance just for the Extreme Ghostbusters game (which has gotten pretty good reviews) and Fire Pro Wreslting A.

And as the world began crumbling down
Nobody around seemed to care

JohnL

#12
February 10, 2003, 02:06:18 AM
>Actually, many Ghostheads consider the Genesis game to be one of the best
>GB games.

I haven't played a lot of Sega or Nintendo games, but I kind of got sick of seeing all the cutesy games where characters with big heads ran around and ocasionally stopped to talk to other characters via talk bubbles at the top of the screen. I always liked the C64 version's style of play. I never liked any of the versions of The Real Ghostbusters either.

Drezzy

#13
February 10, 2003, 06:12:29 PM
Well, if you have a Genesis (or the Nomad, which was sheer genius in a case with buttons), look for the Genesis GB game. It's pretty damn fun, and pretty damn hard.

And as the world began crumbling down
Nobody around seemed to care

JohnL

#14
February 10, 2003, 11:53:57 PM
>Well, if you have a Genesis (or the Nomad, which was sheer genius in a case
>with buttons), look for the Genesis GB game. It's pretty damn fun,

I'd rather play it on an emulator where I can (hopefully) use a controller that isn't made for the wrong hand. In case you hadn't guessed, I *HATE* left-handed control pads. Actually, I hate control pads in general. I'd like to find the guy who thought it would be a good idea to make people play games with a left-handed controller and force him to hand-copy War and Peace using his wrong hand.

>and pretty damn hard.

So this would be one of those games where everything takes like 3 hits to kill, but you only have time to hit each creature 1-2 times before it reaches you? Where you're required to walk/jump/drop blindly into new areas where you're guaranteed to get hit by creatures you can't possibly avoid? Where every creature seems to be able to hit you at twice the range you can hit them at? Where stuff appears out of nowhere about 3 pixels ahead of you so you have no time to react to it? Where you need to press bizarre controller combinations to perform moves that are basically required to succeed in the game?

Sorry if I sound bitter, but I've played a ton of NES/Sega/arcade games where you walk along and lines of guys/creatures come at you twice as fast as you can move and every one takes so many hits to kill that there's no way to avoid being hit, and while you're trying to deal with the 3 guys in front of you and the 2 guys behind you, there's a guy on a platform dropping bombs on your head while stuff pops up out of the ground. Games like those I usually turn on unlimited lives and just die my way through it. Kill 3 guys, die. Climb up the ladder, die. Drop down into the pit, die. Kill 4 more creatures, die. etc.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2
User actions