Afterlife? Maybe they will bring back Egon as a ghost via CGI. Why? Was the car destroyed or renamed in that? Has been ages since I saw the movies. I was scared to death by the first one, frankly, especially the fridge scene. Also much of the jokes lose a lot in translation, and to me, they are like Woody Allen humor - you have to be American to get it. I never understood to this day why Ghostbusters is considered the pinnacle of comedy. It is a good movie, but to me it never struck that hard, neither for most friends I asked here in Hungary. As for the ghosts, well, I think Marshmallow Man was kind of hard to miss, and it was made out of real marshmallow (blew up, after all) so it would be captured on camera. I hate such creative ignoring of sequels. Worked great for Terminator Dork Fate, didn't it? [/sarcasm]
-pushes up nerd glasses- I'm going to TRY to get into too much of the comics since they're loose canon by most standards, BUT, let's start with reality first. Ecto-1 and Ecto-1A were physically two different cars. Both were rotting in a back lot for years due to just... bullshit reasons. Aykroyd even attempted to buy both cars outright in the 90s and again in the early 2000s but Sony refused to entertain any offers. When the video game was announced a HUGE amount of resources went into restoring the original Ecto-1... so much, in fact, that those resources included parts of Ecto-1A. The original car was then used for promotional stints at various locations for the game's original launch date (which was delayed due to Atari going under months before the game's release. Activision would buy the rights and release the game over a year later in 2009... go buy the remaster! it's awesome!). Ecto-1 was then moved to sit in front of Ghost Corps out west where it's actually taken care of... her sister car, Ecto-1A, remained torn apart and neglected in a back lot until THIS movie where she was further dismantled and her parts used for the body of the "hero" Ecto-1. This is the SECOND Ghostbusters film to use more than 1 car (the 2016 had 3 versions of their Ecto-1 for filming), but none of them are the original car. The "hero" car is used for close up exterior shots, another used for filming shots INSIDE the car, and a third for exterior action shots. As for the lore? It's never made clear if the 1A was a modified version of the original or a second car. There's a deleted scene from GB2 where Ecto-1 breaks down on a bridge where both Ray and Winston say she's dead for good. If we take the video game's events as canon as well as some of the easter eggs, we have the Ecto-1B which has similar roof gear to the original Ecto-1 and you can find car parts in corners and other nooks with the GB2 logo on them, including some with similar damage from a deleted scene (parts seen during the montage in the movie) where Ray ends up crashing the car after going into a trance from taking readings of the Vigo painting. So, that leads to the claim both Ecto-1 and the 1A (and the 1B) are the same car, just modified for the times and needs. A LOT of Ecto-1A's roof gear was to deal with the mass amounts of pink slime cropping up in 89. All that being said, it's not so much of a reach to assume the roof gear was minimized due to fewer busts... also because the 1A was top heavy as hell (there's a few shots of the car almost rolling over taking a turn at normal speeds). Also, let's not forget that ladder... which is on the wrong side now. So, what does this thesis have to do with the new movie and what everyone has been talking about? The car can be easily explained with either the roof equipment being dialed down due to not NEEDING all that gear OR this is where the original car was being stored after the engine quit in 89. What about the events of GB1 and 2 being considered a hoax? it was the 80s! News was MUCH MUCH slower back then. Maybe a HANDFUL of people had personal cameras let alone video recorders with them all the time and were clunky and blurry unless you were a friggin expert. NYC wasn't the tourist trap it is now back in those days... people didn't go there unless they lived there or HAD to go there. It's not that extreme to have people claim those events were faked or never happened when in reality we have holocaust deniers, 9/11 deniers and flat Earth believers (among other insane things) when there's piles of evidence proving such things happened. We also don't know how many details Rudd's character will go into until the movie comes out, so saying "OH MY GOD THEY'RE TOTALLY IGNORING GB2 AND EVERYTHING ELSE" right now is VERY premature. I just can't see Jason Reitman ignoring his father's sequel when this whole movie is being touted as a love letter to the franchise. So, let's not get pissed off over unconfirmed what-ifs until we see the movie in it's entirety.
In the ghostbusters game both the ghostbusters 2 sign and the ghostbusters 2 car (covered in a sheet) are in the back room of the firehouse if you peek in the window.
Cool... I never knew any of that stuff... thanks Ray actually says after the party at the beginning of GB2 that people barely remember them and is indignant towards people for how they're treated after what they did for the city. They were already considered a joke (or a hoax) by the start of the sequel. It was only whilst refreshing my read of that Vanity Fair article for this response that my mind, in this instance, was drawn to Star Wars. In ANH, Han refers to "Hokey religions and ancient weapons" when he was alive (if young) during the events of the PT (OK... dumb planning on the part of GL, perhaps) and in TFA, Rey makes similarly offhand / disbelieving comments about the events of ANH-RotJ and Luke Sywalker even though it would still have been in living memory for many people. Same principal, different franchise... "something within my own living memory didn't happen".. similar to Mission City in TF07 (although it's suggested in RotF that there was actually a cover up). Films will bodge their own continuity in such regards if it fits their narrative Given how the scene in GB2 was played, I don't think they'll go this route, but I'd love it if Rudd turns out to be one of the "ungrateful yuppie larvae" from the party
Heh, yeah... some people obsess over Star Wars, Star Trek, sports teams, or Harry Potter. Me? Ghostbusters. While I'm not so bad as to remember the time stamp of when a certain line is spoken, I know more than the average bear about it (it also will forever influence my car purchases until they pry my driver's license from my dead hands.... currently driving a white 2008 Dodge Magnum with the license plate ECTO-81 with magnetic No Ghost logos ready to be slapped onto the car at a moment's notice!)
Excellent There's something wrong with that level of detail? I don't know anything that well myself, but I'd not think anything bad of someone who did A line of thinking I understand well
It’s a nice trailer and I hope it’ll be a good movie but the tone is off to me, doesn’t feel anything like a comedy. I’m sure it’ll have laughs cause Paul Rudd is in it but yeah.
So peter opened a store up in that town. So he is not a ghost! Also the ghost they are shooting at the end is slimmer who must have been at the farmhouse or in the trap!
I really enjoyed the trailer. I feel they showed off just the right amount of stuff for a teaser and we still have somewhat of an idea of what the movie is about. This is my most anticipated movie of 2020 and I hope it lives up to expectations. Also, I just so happen to be wearing my Ghostbusters pajama pants so I guess that's something!
Doesn’t really look like anything special to me. A lot of cashing in on nostalgia with a side garnish of modern pop culture. It’s a redbox watch but I’ll check it out eventually.
Maybe all the news crews' equipment at the end of the first movie got covered in marshmallow goo and didn't work anymore...could explain why if it turns out no one has video proof OK, since you know so much about it I hope you don't mind if I ask you something. A few years ago I visited a car museum in Gatlinburg, TN, which had a GB car (can't remember for sure if it was Ecto-1 or 1A). The lady there said it was only used for exterior shots, which made sense because the inside consisted mainly of blocks of wood (I sat in it and it was not comfortable). The original GB actors had autographed the inside of the roof. Could this have been an actual screen-used prop like they said it was, or were they just pulling my leg?
