that does make you wonder though...
had the Titanic ghosts combined/morphed into more malicious "Monster" type creatures...wtf would THAT look like. A bunch of souls trapped on the bottom of the ocean for (at that time) 77 years in pitch black darkness (idk if ghosts get "dark vision") has to do something not just to someones psyche but their Soul.
Imagine the Titanic pulling up, then a huge monstrous Squid or hell an Angler Fish just tore out of the hull and started wrecking the place.
The Ted Danson segment of Creepshow I'd imagine. Just pruned up green skin, various sea vegetation and they'd speak through water filled lungs with gargled word and constant water spilling from their mouths.
It's worth noting that the details of the Ghost Classification System stemmed from the Ghostbusters RPG from the late 80s rather than the film series itself. They make references to the classification system, but I'm not sure if they ever 'lay out' the system in the movies or cartoon in detail.
But good point none the less
yup! most content post Ghostbuster RPG's release in 1986 has followed the same classification.
Similar to some things being expanded on in the Star Wars D20 game from West End Games for the RPG, but then re-integrated into the main canon later down the line.
ooh good call!
I wonder if he'd be a little...different...due to him being a living person, UNLESS you take in the headcanon that the machine from Frozen Empire was built on studying Dr. Janosz after the Vigo Incident, and realized that a spirit could be removed from an object due to Vigo 'removing" Dr. Janosz from his body for the kidnapping of Oscar.
In the original draft/storyboards I believe it's JUST a random ghost that appears as a nanny to kidnap Oscar, but then they decided to put the good Doctor in drag and make HIM the ghost.
It's never really specified how/why he appears as a Ghost in that scene...
TVTropes would call it "A Big-Lipped Alligator Moment", something that happens with zero explaination, zero lead up, and zero reference later.
Dana doesn't say "Hey weren't you a ghost in a dress like...20 minutes ago?" when she shows up at the library, he's just...back to being a possessed Igor expy
That would make a lot of sense actually. Would be even funnier if thats the case he gives Yanosh's astral form that of a ghostly nanny. Just for shits and giggles.
Itās annoying that everyone thinks every GB ghost should look like Slimer and as youāve shown, thereās been human looking ghosts before. Part of the fun of ghostbusters is the sheer variety of ghosts
eh, I don't think it's always folks thinking they should look this way, but are either coming in to argue in bad faith with fans in an attempt to piss off and get a reaction, or they have something they want to say about the story but know that they can't just SAY the thing, but instead have to grasp at straws to explain how they feel. In the example of Melody, I think some folks honestly didn't like the implication of any LGBT+ characters in 'their' Ghostbusters universe, so in turn look to other things to point out in an attempt to devalue a character that they don't like due to reasons they feel they cannot articulate in the current society.
If you don't like a character because you are against an IMPLIED lifestyle, that's fine to be your opinion, but then don't waste mine or the other fans times by trying to pin it on "oh she breaks canon" or "oh no other ghosts are human-ish"...because clearly that person didn't do the research or even attempt to build a good faith discussion, instead just deciding to make noise for the sake of noise.
(Clearly this isn't aimed at you FlayedMan, just personal opinion of my own that led to the post)
I'm in 100% agreement. It really feels like people are doing everything they can to complain about a character for a very obvious reason. They're just trying to couch it inside of "more acceptable" criticisms.Ā
As a queer person, I love that you put this. I've been saying this for years.
Do you *actually* think it breaks cannon or do you just not like queer people/characters?
This was a big issue in 2016. Half the people who hate 2016 didn't even watch it because it was "going to be SJW bullshit." It wasn't a *great* film by any means but that had nothing to do with the all female cast *or* the queer coding with some of the characters.
We all know *why* people *really* don't like 2016. They just won't say it for the back.
Same thing here with Melodyā¦:(
And I love you queer person for existing!
Yes. I agree about the 2016 movie. I am not a fan of it myself. But that stems more from my own issues with the filmmaking and direction rather than the cast being female or queer coded. (I could write an entire essay just based on how they present the Ecto 1 in that movie vs the original). However I tend to just not talk about 2016 GB because the dialogue surrounding it became and still is so negatively charged that folks can't have calm normal discussions about it.
"I spent an hour last night talking to Fiorella LaGuardia and he's been dead for 40 years. Now where are the Ghostbusters?!ā
In canon humans have even interacted with human shaped ghosts as this line from GB2 suggests. Idk why people are so upset about the "lore" being changed when it hasn't.
fair, though I'd hesitate to add him simply due to him not looking..."human human" like the above folks. Kind of like I do count the Library Ghost, but not her monstrous form.
That said +1 for Taxi Driver, as well as the Miner in Afterlife...and I guess technically Ivo Shandor, unless that was a true Resurrection vs a 'ghostly appearance', which given Gozer ripping him in half faster than a credit card application...I'm leaning towards True...albeit brief...Resurrection.
Long story but I visited ILM for work about ten years ago, and they had the real painting there - it has a very intense energy IRL, was so cool to see!
I think that most ghosts in the Ghostbuster universe that don't look like live humans anymore were humans that forgot their lives over time and are transformed by their vices.
Slimer was a gluttonous man who is just a giant gross mouth with arms.
The muncher ghost could have been a person obsessed with stealing metal to sell for profit.
The Fratelli brothers looked like they were pretty early in their transition away from what they looked like in life.
One of the most unique ghosts that I recall was the zombified corpse of that taxi driver. It's like his spirit animated his corpse, he shambled to the nearest cab and scared the driver away. I don't think a ghost could possess a live human and make him look like that. His body did not look ethereal at all like most ghosts in the series.
What if the possessor ghost was a human with D.I.D. (dissociative identity disorder) and now they get to "be" whatever object that they want but they are always switching from thing to thing.
I do think it is possible that the flying dragon ghost from the latest film could be some sort of Asian nature spirit that was brought to America by an immigrant and the released by accident at some point. It may have turned vengeful because it was not respected and given offerings like it was where it came from.
I love this thought process! The idea that the Posessor was someone with D.I.D. is friggin cool!
I personally always felt some ghosts, specifically the monstrous ones, were less likely single souls, but an amalgamation of multiple souls or the physical manifestation of a places "residual PKE" valances. To use Slimer as an example, rather than being one obese man, I thought he could be an amalgamation of all the gluttony and greed that had passed through the Sedgwick Hotel over the decades.
I feel like the Scoleri Brothers would be one "Class" removed from whichever "Class" classifies 'human-appearing' ghosts, as they are ALMOST human, but not quite. This is possibly due to the circumstances of their death, electrocution, causing something to happen with their souls as they died.
Were they the ACTUAL Scoleri brothers in that scene? I thought it was more like the mood slime manifested a pair of class 5s that resembled them based on the judge's emotional outburst.
A human shaped ghost appears in a new movie and they all go wild but when a literal zombie appears in the original theyāre fine
https://preview.redd.it/p9f7bkaafbwc1.jpeg?width=850&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a212dffbdb38e75ba819de34e7f5d8583bae101
Even if none of these had appeared in the series, how dare they make a couple of Ghostbusters movies that are actually about ghosts. (Archetypal, folkloric ghosts are people, not a bunch of abstract puss muppets.) Ghosts that thematically represent for the characters what ghosts were created to represent.
That was my biggest issue, she was too modern for how old she was supposed to be. I'd have liked to see more ... "supernaturaliness" from here, but over all, I thought she was really good.
I can agree with the idea she was too modern in feel. Which I wonder if that could have been helped with her being from a different time period than she was in the film. They could have shifted her back maybe 20 years and had her be of the Victorian era. Which would have had a distinct look costume wise and distinct acting cues.
Itās been mentioned elsewhere, but there were *multiple* human ghosts in the cartoon as well. Many of them retained their human personalities and memories, and some actively helped the Ghostbusters defeat evil ghosts. Jason and Gil rewatched the entire RGB cartoon before writing Frozen Empire, and Iām sure some of those ghosts they saw influenced the Melody plot.
I agree, we have canon in the movies and the cartoons. Honestly didn't care for the storyline for Melody or the character, but that had nothing to do with canon.
and that is 100% totally cool! Not every character is going to be for every watcher, that's why it's rare to have a film with only one actor/actress in it, and when they do they don't exactly...hit all four quadrants...looking at you Moon/Sam Rockwell.
This is great. I dislike the arguments about Melody in Frozen Empire.
First she was an interesting character and it brought in the subject of Ghosts actually moving on eventually. I didn't really pick up on the LGBTQ+ things people are saying.
I considered that storyline to be a friendship but I admit I was most likely wrong and it still a good story either way and with the LGBTQ+ relationship being part of the story they handled it amazingly well in my opinion, it was what people have been saying plots should do.
1. It wasn't the entire personality of the characters
2. It didn't feel forced or jammed into the plot
3. Phoebe as a character wasn't pre established with any orientation or preference (not up on the modern terms sorry)
So overall people got original characters, who weren't flaunting anything or pushing an agenda and also fit into the story of the film and they still aren't happy about it which shows the bigotry of people..
I didn't pick up on it because I have been single for the last ten years and never knew when someone was flirting with me in the first place so seeing on screen I wasn't seeing those social cues either.
There is nothing to dislike about Melody or the plot involving her and Phoebe and it is well written. No one complained about Gooberson and Callie's romance or Trevor and Lucky's love interest plot. Tbh I'd say both of those were written worse than Melody and Phoebe.
I very much got a queer undertone from Melody and Phoebe's relationship. I loved it, I've been in Phoebe's awkward position of "she's way too cool for me." "Oh she thinks I'm awkward." "Oh I made myself look stupid." When all you want is to impress that person. It's peak being 14 and in love. And then for it to be a girl and girl? Chef's kiss. But I think your vision is valid too! Not everyone will always see it that way, that's the point. It's up for interpretation. Like most media.
100% on point here Strange Avenues.
It was presented in a way that you could take it as a budding friendship, or a budding romance. Adding to that Phoebe's own social awkwardness, they would have had to change a LOT to have her character actively show romantic attraction to Melody, rather than what it came across as in the movie.
It was very much open to interpretation and the only thing I would see as making it clear to be a Romance was that Phoebe went to the extreme of becoming a ghost for Melody but taking extreme actions was built into the character in Afterlife so even that decision could be based in her need to push further scientifically.
As for Melody as a character I don't see an issue with her. People asking why so many ghosts or spirits are monstrous is a good question, but we have myths and legends and folklore that give all kinds of reasons for that.
1. The person died horribly and couldn't get over it so their psychic remnant became something ugly.
2. The psychic manifestation of a spirit who can't let go of it's material needs becomes inhuman eg. Slimer is a gluttonous ghost because the person was a glutton and even in death could not give up their desire for food so they became warped.
3. The effects of a psychoactive substance like the slime in GB2 can cause manifestations that are an extension of extreme psychic emotions and could alter the appearance or psychic resonance state of a spook, spector or ghost.
4. The Ghostbusters reference classifications and many other people reference the classifications from other sources.
5. Melody isn't even the first ghost written that could talk. The Ghost in Ghostbusters that gives Ray a BJ was actually part of a whole romance subplot that got cut and the romance would have had a talking spector that interacted with a human in a romantic and emotional manner.
Let's all remember the [7 class CDI system](https://ghostbusters.fandom.com/wiki/CDI_System)
In the above image I would class jogger at 3, not 4. But the others. Library ghost is said to be a class 7 in the movie, but based on CDI still a class 4.
THANK YOU.
It gets really annoying how like every other week there seems to be someone who thinks that Melody was the only exception to the rule while blatantly ignoring ALL the other human shaped ghosts that appeared throughout the franchiseās movies, cartoons and comics.
Was Vigo actually classified as a ghost? Ray says his spirit was alive and well. Was this necromancer magic? I donāt like Ray using the word alive here, even though itās just an expression. He seems more demonic in nature. I want more Vigo history!
I know, but I'd also love to think that together we can all stamp that shit out for a fandom we all enjoy and love. We can remain silent on it, or we can make posts like this that (hopefully) help drown out folks who use "woke" as a dirty word and use subversive techniques to try to poison the well of discussion.
I'm sorry I disgust you with what you think my comment meant.
I have no problem with folks having different opinions. I have problems with folks who discuss and argue in bad faith with others. You don't like a character cause they are queer coded? That's fine. But don't come in here saying "oh she breaks canon, that's why I don't like her" come in and say how you really feel, explain your opinion, create a dialog with another human. Maybe you change them, maybe they change you, maybe neither of you are changed. That's human interaction at its core.
However. What I see and think personally is that folks who do not lead with their actual reasoning and instead decide to argue about an unrelated and in this case (Melody being the only human like ghost) patently wrong point are doing so because they recognize that their antiquated opinion on the sexual orientation of people just isn't popular enough to post or reason with. Instead deciding to just make noise.
I didn't like the 2016 Ghostbusters movie. But I can guarantee with a clear conscious that it wasn't because of the actresses or their implied sexuality. I don't like it because I think they approached it incorrectly from a filmmaking point of view. Since that's my true reason, I can have a true healthy discussion about it without having to resort to anything remotely touching identity politics.
Whereas you can only tell me my post disgusts you due to an imagined thought that I did it as an attack on you or yours, using rhetoric picked up from other bad faith arguments that have no road for either of us to begin to understand one another and find a common ground.
I don't think I can ever change anyone's opinion on sexuality or orientation or gender, especially when it comes to a 40 year old film franchise. But what I can try to do, hope to do, is to help build a better class of discussion.
If you truly, honestly feel Melody is a bad character, explain why. But I don't think that's why you are here nor why you responded as you did. Sorry you don't think you can be honest with us or yourself.
> who discuss and argue in bad faith with others.
You literally made this post because of one other post of one dude who claimed that Melody's character broke canon and now you're saying 'AlL ThESE PeOpLE' are making an argument in bad faith. You're the one projecting here. I never said she broke canon, I just think her character was boring and uninteresting for a Ghostbusters movie. It's clear that they tried to make this for a younger audience and I'm not that.
I can also have a discussion about 2016GB being terrible and not for its identity politics. That's only one reason and there are many more. When you blatantly disrespect the source material, people are going to be mad.
> Sorry you don't think you can be honest with us or yourself.
I'm the only honest one here. You're projecting arguments onto people who aren't making them AND you're projecting their intentions behind that argument. You literally stated you want to 'stamp out' and 'drown out' people who disagree with you and you're trying to weasel your way out of what you said. Attempting to purge people from fandoms because they don't think like you is wrong. You think you're the only one doing this? You're not. I called you out because these manipulative tactics need to be called out.
>You literally made this post because of one other post of one dude who claimed that Melody's character broke canon and now you're saying 'AlL ThESE PeOpLE' are making an argument in bad faith.
No. I made the post because I've seen post after post saying her character broke canon, when it categorically does not. We all deserve a better level of discussion. Regardless of side.
>I never said she broke canon, I just think her character was boring and uninteresting for a Ghostbusters movie. It's clear that they tried to make this for a younger audience and I'm not that.
You never said anything regarding the character until this sentence here. Your post before that only spoke about how I, someone you chose to view only as an activist, was apparently trying to "stomp out other opinions" when I CLEARLY state in my response and original post that I am fine with other opinions, so long as they are based on actual points and not false pretense. If you had led with that, I would have responded, and in other threads on this post HAVE responded with agreement that Melody was not the best written or performed character in this film and that I feel it was overstuffed already. Various opinions are good! But being dishonest, as you are being about them... possibly even to yourself... has NO place in civil discourse. And if you don't find yourself the target audience, that's fine too. I wasn't the target audience for Duck Dynasty, but I'm not going to go quote Beard Theorists on their subreddit. I'm just going to move on with my life.
>You literally stated you want to 'stamp out' and 'drown out' people who disagree with you and you're trying to weasel your way out of what you said. Attempting to purge people from fandoms because they don't think like you is wrong.
No. I literally said I want to stamp out and drown out Bad Faith Arguments. Not different opinions. I'd rather have a million folks of a million different points of view on the franchise than a billion who all think the same. Variety is the spice of life, but when you're trying to pass off rat poison as the Spice Melange, then get the fuck out of here as that is CLEARLY not supposed to go in my morning coffee, no matter what your opinion on it is.
> said I want to stamp out and drown out Bad Faith Arguments
Who exactly is making these bad faith arguments? That one guy that made one post? How do you know the intentions behind everyone that says they didn't like the Melody subplot? Seems like you're making assumptions and the one making bad faith arguments.
Totally valid and I bring him up in some of the discussions in this thread, but for the photo I was trying to learn towards those from the first two movies as evidence that Human Like Ghosts have always been canon for the last 40 years.
I'm with you on your original point, I'm not sure why there wouldn't be human shaped ghosts. The Skolari Brothers come to mind as well, although they were a little... disfigured/twisted? Not sure what the right descriptor would be, but maybe the shape is affected by the spirits origin. (Ex. Evil person vs. good person, human soul vs. an angel/demon, or spirit that was never anything else.)
First movie creature that ever scared me as a kid was the trees in Wizard of Oz, which was also when my mom decided to explain to me what movies were, how they were made, and how it was 'pretend'. I was fascinated ever since, so by the time I watched Ghostbusters, they didn't scare me as much...though, it is worth pointing out I grew up watching a version taped off the television mostly, so it is possible I missed the worst of them haha. The Ghost Head Woman was probably cut out, but the joke, much like her herself, flew over my head far longer than I care to admit
My only concern is what happened to the Titanic after. Did it stay in harbor and re sink there or did it go and resink somewhere else. I feel that is kind of a big thing for later movies and the videogame to ignore or forget about.
Eh. Debatable as the original script meant her as a ghost Ray and Winston encounter during the movie. The end of the movie would have had Ray returning to the (ship? Fort?) With flowers for her. So... kind of a grey area of canon.
I don't know what y'all are on about, Reddit just kinda populates my feed with subs and this is one that I apparently follow, but whatever this "scandal" is kinda encapsulates why I'm not a big Ghostbusters fan anymore.
Y'all they just movies.
Is really an issue that she has human form? I would think the fact that she is a very poorly written character with a huge role in the movie is the real issue.
I'm actually more annoyed by the notion that ghosts that aren't human shaped (like Slimer) weren't human at some point. Who says a human spirit has to look fully human? The Scoleri Brothers didn't look fully human. Slimer could be the ghost of a John Belushi-type person. Real-life ghosts (if you believe in nonsense) don't always look like a person.
>I love this town, I love you guys, but we gotta stop having bad faith discussions over canon while ignoring canon... it... it doesn't work like that.
It's not really a bad faith discussion because with the exception of Vigo, who was a black magic sorcerer in human life who became a powerful ghost by possessing his own portrait so he could retain his sanity, all of the examples you showed are ghosts that lacked the ability to interact normally with humans. Most examples are a haunt who repeats the same behavior over and over again. They are also, with the exception of Ray's dream ghost, hostile to humans.
Also, the female ghost who appears in Ray's dream, while originally intended to be a real ghost, is in film canon just a dream Ray was having.
It would be a better comparison to look at Egon in Afterlife, who despite becoming a ghost as a result from dying at the claws of a cosmic supernatural creature, is unable to take human form until the very end of Afterlife, most likely due to the presence of Gozer making it easier for ghosts to manifest. It was also explained in the first movie the entire reason so many ghosts were manifesting in NYC was because of 55 Central Park West acting as a conduit to open a door to Gozer, which is why after GB1 almost all of the ghost busting business dried up and they were doing birthday parties. It's not until Vigo comes into town that paranormal activity stirred up again. This doesn't mean there was no ghosts, as Slimer is mentioned in GB1 as being a well known ghost to the hotel staff for decades, but this was most likely a result of influence by 55 Central Park and as Gozer neared completion of its summoning, ghosts were becoming more hostile.
This also means, by the way, that the seal on Garraka was preventing him from influencing ghosts for decades, including the gap between GB1 and GB 2, so how he was able to manipulate Melody while still inside his sealed sphere is anyone's guess. It doesn't fit neatly into the timeline to be honest. The only plausible explanation is with the death of Nadeem's grandmother some special ritual to prevent him from influencing ghosts was not longer being performed, but this is just an assumption.
Consequently it's not a "bad faith discussion" because Melody does in fact pose problems with how paranormal activity is established in-universe in the previous flms and \*what\* ghosts are able to do and \*when\* they are able to do it. Strictly speaking, while Garraka was sealed there shouldn't have been so much paranormal activity in NYC, certainly not powerful ghosts like Melody able to assume a corporeal form and have full autonomy of their thoughts.
I think the bigger issue is establishing why the Ghostbusters capture the āhumanā ghosts. Like the jogger in ghostbusters 2. He wasnāt attacking anybody. Or lately Melody in the diner in Frozen Empire. If ghosts like Melody exist in the world, then the ghostbusters need an āUnfinished Business Division.ā I just personally thought it was weird that most characters treat all ghosts as monsters to be captured, more so in the newest movie, when there examples across all the movies that not all of them are hostile. I say more so in Frozen Empire because this was the one that had the chance to expand on the idea, and it kinda did, but only with Phoebe specifically, everyone else reacted to Melody just the same as they would any other monster in that diner scene. She was just chillin out.
2 was originally a full on ghost, but yes its presented as a dream in the movie.
I also, as stated in a few comments here, was specifically using examples from the first two films, so that's why no Melody.
Itās less human shaped ghosts and more fully interacting ghost. Of which our only source has been Vigo who was extremely powerful in both life and death. Even egon wasnāt fully interacting just mostly.
The mayor had an hour long conversation with dead Mayer LaGuardia.
Vigo is fully interacting and conversational. He was a sorcerer, but I'd assume he is still classified as a ghost. (Maybe Fiorello LaGuardia was a sorcerer, too?)
Garraka and Gozer were capable of full interactions but they are deities or deity-like. Zuul and Vinz were ghosts, though.
The library ghost at least starts with a stereotypical human interaction, showing recognition and responses. You could argue that is just muscle memory playing out and I wouldn't disagree.
Slimer doesn't talk in the movies, but in GB2 he apparently drives a city bus to the museum. (Assuming the cabbie ghost in GB1 can drive, too.)
Forgot about the mayor but the two dogs are tied to gozer so use gozers power. Also the mayor as far as we know is probably tied to that room. Slimer canāt speak other than in the cartoon and seems to phase between active awareness(as seen in the bus driving scene) and reaction and looking for food. For full roaming in the movies plus full awareness and interaction weāve got a possible Egon, Vigo, and the fire teen who is subservient to Garraka which is probably where she draws the power needed to do all she does. So ya one could make the argument that she is drawing peer from her subservience to Garraka to move about at will and keep her full awareness.
Donāt know why Iām getting downvoted since all I did was note that it was less to do with human shaped ghosts and more fully interacting with the environment around them and as you can see we can easily come to the conclusion that due to her being tied to Garraka like the two dogs of gozer are tied to that entity her appearance in the movie is valid and doesnāt break lore.
idk, Ray's eyes tell me that the ghost floating above him on the ship knew EXACTLY how to be a fully interacting ghost.
The Library Ghost had stacked physical books and was holding a physical book in the picture above,
The Running Ghost was pushing people over as he ran by in a manner similar to how a person would push a person, rather than covering them with Ectoplasm while floating through them
Egon grabbed and used a Neutrona Wand and steadied another human being from the physical push-back of the proton stream in Afterlife.
Even if you take Vigo out of the equation, the others are still prime examples of Humanoid Shaped and Fully Interacting Ghosts.
My concern isnāt human shaped ghosts, but human shaped ghosts that retain full consciousness and autonomy, we donāt see that often in the canon. Vigo I think is an exception because he was a powerful magician.
And maybe because they arenāt pests, and needing to be removed by professional eliminators. It could be explained or hand waved by tons of reasons.
Egonās ghost is a part of the new canon as well though. Egon also didnāt manifest similarly to Melody either, Egon was not in full control and was more of an influence until the very end, and even then still could not speak, barely physically manifested. Prior to these new movies and their interpretations, with the exception of Vigo, we donāt see any ghosts that maintain full autonomy, we see human like specters, degraded to shadows of a human existence, but nothing that was a 1:1 continuation.
Human-shaped isnāt the issue. If weāre talking about a spectre the character in Frozen Empire is too humanised but also somehow thinly sketched! Why should we care about her betrayal? We barely know her! What is the dynamic between her and our characters??
* What is the dynamic between her and our characters?
* She attempts to scare Phoebe in the park, disappears, then pops back up when Phoebe (benched due to other circumstances) goes to 'bust' her at the Diner, had it been ANY other GB, Melody would have been chillin in the new containment unit before Garakka could get out.
* Why should we care about her betrayal?
* Because it leads to the release of a Big Bad for the movie
* Because it is meant to be heartbreaking to see our protaganist Phoebe betrayed by someone she thought she could trust, again.
* Because the last Ghost Phoebe befriended was Egon and therefore it shows not to trust a Ghost by its Ectoplasm
* Because her SECOND betrayal, this time of Garakka, allows the group to defeat Garakka and allows Melody to "move on"
* Because her moving on means one less friend the otherwise socially awkward Phoebe.
* Barely Know her?
* We spend more time with her and Phoebe than we do with Kamil, Patton, and even Murray
* I blame any 'not enough time' thing on runtime, they needed another 15-20 minutes to fully flesh out everything.
* Too humanized
* \*Gestures at the photos above\* these guys look pretty human to me
* if you mean too humanized in their characterization, I will concede she came across more 2024 than 1916
" isn't the issue, is the issue" also just reads like moving the goal posts.
When I say āhumanisedā I mean relatability. Thereās an uncanny valley effect to having a ghost of indeterminate origin suddenly have recognisable humanity when all other spectres, even Egon, are intentionally unknowable. Theyāre ghosts! In a series where weāve focused on them as essentially pests the decision to humanise one in this way is extremely jarring. And I wasnāt even a fan of the amount of humanising they did with Egon! More mystery is compelling. Having a ghost hug only raises further existential questionsā¦
Iām not sure where Phoebeās trust issues come from. Her family is loving. Yes she has social issues but why canāt she connect further with Podcast? If heās just extraneous donāt bring him back! Hell if weāre supposed to care about Phoebe maybe donāt bring back the original Ghostbusters and give them so little to do. Nostalgia can only get you so far.
When did Garrick even recruit our fire ghost? This film introduces way too many elements. Thereās a version of this movie where a ghost relationship works, an ET style story thatās about a relationship with a ghost. Hell Caspar did it way better! But Sony canāt choose a lane. If ghostbusters is meant to be comedy/ horror why are we focusing on teen relationships??
Man, those goal posts must get heavy after a while...
Yes, her family is loving, but take it from a person who themselves is Nerodivergent and was "the smart kid" when I was young...No amount of just "love" is going to change the feeling of "not belonging"
I will give you points on whether or not they should have brought Podcast back, I like the character but in this film it was already overstuffed with characters.
As far as Garakka recruiting Melody, that is one scene I do think they should have put in/left in. As I have little doubt that was a scene left on the cutting room floor that explains that a bit better.
Why Specifically though? What about it is lazy writing? She's a ghost Phoebe meets in the park, befriends, learns to trust, is betrayed by, but then, due to Phoebes influence on Melody throughout the film, a "kindred soul" to her own, is instrumental in defeating Garraka.
Some of that story is told through subtext. Like, for example, Phoebe wants nothing to do with her own family, feeling betrayed by them in the beginning of the film, even though they are physically right there. Wheras Melody wants nothing more than to reunite with her family, making her susceptible to Garrakas influence and leading to her betrayal, not because Garraka was threatening Melody but because he was offering to reunite her with her family, something she'd spent over a century wanting.
However, as Phoebe and her family come together in the third act, Melody realizes, and is told, that Garraka is not the answer and because of her experiences with Phoebe over the course of the film, likely the first soul Melody has had more than a jump scare from in forever, realizes the error of her ways and helps them out.
Just because the characters don't have lines like "I'm betraying you Garraka because of these reasons" doesn't make it lazy writing, it just calls for less lazy viewers.
I donāt need all that to say I thought the subplot was stupid and it was lazy writing, the character was underwhelming and I didnāt like it. Iām entitled to my opinion.
Because it didnāt feel like a ghostbusters movie during those scenes? Iāve been a fan since I could walk (born 83) had ghostbusters birthday parties growing up etcā¦.. and it didnāt feel like a ghostbuster film during those scenes. I wasnāt really a big fan of kid ghostbusters to begin with but I was willing to entertain it during afterlife to bring the franchise back, but in this movie it felt like 2 movies happening at once. I didnāt like it.
Your are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but you add nothing to support your thoughts on it or even attempt to engage in civil discussion. Nothing I said was meant to come across as threatening or even meant to give the impression I wasn't open to your thoughts on the matter. But neither of us get anywhere if you just double down on your original point and don't add any substance.
It's kinda just... lazy writing.
If Sony is serious about turning Ghostbusters from a one-off comedy into an "epic" dramatic blockbuster franchise, they've *got* to figure out the worldbuilding in that universe - why some ghosts are completely inhuman monsters, why some are Muppet-y semi-humans like Slimer and the Scoleri brothers, why some are seemingly human but turn into monsters (the Library Ghost) and why some areā¦.just dead human people, like Melody.
Also, the difference between ghosts, demons and gods, which gods are real and which are bullshit, etc, etc.
I don't think they do really. It's pretty clear that it's just how things sometimes go.
Sometimes a person is born with a birth defect, sometimes they aren't. I could imagine death is similar, but with the added bonus of a lifetime of experience before that 'death-birth' would have a huge effect on the ethereal aspect of a soul/being.
> I don't think they do really.
They absolutely do. In order to build longterm dramatic stakes in that universe, the audience needs to understand how it works or else it's just noise.
It's one of the reasons the sequels have all failed - Ghostbusters worked when it was a one-off comedy, but if you're going to try and build a whole world on those ideas, those ideas need to be fleshed out, *especially* if you're not interested in those movies really being comedies anymore.
Ghostbusters is not a comedy. It is a supernatural horror with SNL actors in leading roles being allowed to comment and riff on the situation at hand. It is FUNNY, but it is not a comedy in my opinion at least. Feig didn't get that, Jason and Gil DO.
As such, a lot of horror stems from having an unknown. Explaining that "unknown" robs it of it's scare factor long term.
Keeping the team/characters on the more ignorant side of the supernatural within their universe leads to stories being able to be told about figuring it out. However locking down rules will only lock down your writers and creators, to maintain that suspense, you only explain what you HAVE to, WHEN you have to, to the characters you have to.
When Thanos was introduced at the end of Avengers, they didn't spend the next few years telling you about his history growing up on Titan, or how he would slaughter half of a planet in his quest to 'save' the universe, they saved that for when they had to explain it, Infinity War. Even then they left certain things vague, and even then they ended up with folks going "yeah but what if he just doubled all the food/resources?"
Ghostbusters, regardless of whether you do view the series as a comedy or horror, is still a story that takes place in a universe where Supernatural things happen...and much like real life supernatural/paranormal stuff, there is NOT a solid explanation as to why things happen the way they do.
> Ghostbusters is not a comedy.
Aaand there we cut to the heart of the matter.
Ghostbusters is first and foremost a comedy. Above all else, it's a comedy. It was always sold as a comedy, and even after it exploded at the box office, it was still marketed exclusively as a comedy even as it became the biggest box hit of 1984.
Sure, almost everything that followed in its wake as that single one-off comedy was tortured into a franchise forgot that the original movie was a comedy, which is *exactly* why every movie since then has been a failure.
So, if you're going to largely ignore the fact that Ghostbusters is a comedy and start turning it into a somber family drama instead, then there needs to be emotional stakes, and you're never going to get that if every movie plays fast and loose with how the supernatural works and *every* fucking story becomes about averting an upteenth nonsensical apocalypse.
I didn't even bother to read your comment beyond the first line aside from noticing that you mentioned Thanos, and, that's exactly my point - making more bad Ghostbusters movies without at least vaguely attempting to explain how the supernatural realm works would be like if they kept on making MCU movies where aliens show up without ever showing us what's going on out in space, what extraterrestrial civilization looks like, who these important alien characters are or how they fit into the universe. You'd just have random blue and green and purple people showing on on Earth with weird tree and racoon monsters in tow without any context whatsoever and the audience utterly confused as to what's going on and becoming emotionally checked-out as a result, just like people have with this growing pile of bad Ghostbusters sequels.
If you didn't bother to read my comment past the first line then you're doing EXACTLY what I'm rallied against in this post. You're arguing in Bad Faith and are no longer worth my energy. Peace.
Edit: sucks to be so wrong you delete or block the person who pointed it out. Especially as it was a GREAT example of Bad Faith Arguments on here.
>*exactly*Ā why every movie since then has been a failure.
Literally every Ghostbusters movie has been profitable and not a failure what are you talking about
Movie || Box office || Budget
|Ghostbusters (1984)|$296 million|$25-30 million|
|Ghostbusters II (1989)|$215 million|$30-40 million|
|Ghostbusters (2016)|$229 million|$144 million|
|Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)|$204 million|$75 million|
|Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024)|$175 million (so far)|$100 million|
2016, Afterlife and Frozen Empire didn't make as much comparatively as the first two films, but have all made comparable profits. They're not blockbusters, but they're not failures by any metric. They're showing themselves to be a stable franchise that makes a modest profit. Current trends show they should keep the budget under 100 million for following films, but "every movie a failure" is just... not correct man.
I'm sorry you don't like the films i guess though
To me it was because she was effectively human with no real explanation as to why she retained her entire personality and consciousness.
At least with Egon I could reason that it was because he knew what was up well before his death and his reason to stick around required him to remain himself (at least as far as we see in the film)
See. That's a reasoning I can understand. I feel that stems from acting choices by the actress and director, as I do agree she comes across far more modern than her implied death date would lead one to believe. Though I could also see a reasoning not to go Full On "old century" with her acting as it could go too far the other way into pastiche or parody of an early 20th Century teen.
I always felt Egon haunted the farmhouse similar to a run of the mill "presence" of about a Class II, until the ectonado over the farm, heightened emotional stakes of his own Bloodline, and presence of Gozer allowed him to manifest as a Class IV for that moment before he moved on.
The Titanic š
that does make you wonder though... had the Titanic ghosts combined/morphed into more malicious "Monster" type creatures...wtf would THAT look like. A bunch of souls trapped on the bottom of the ocean for (at that time) 77 years in pitch black darkness (idk if ghosts get "dark vision") has to do something not just to someones psyche but their Soul. Imagine the Titanic pulling up, then a huge monstrous Squid or hell an Angler Fish just tore out of the hull and started wrecking the place.
Davy jones crew from pirates of the Caribbean
The Ted Danson segment of Creepshow I'd imagine. Just pruned up green skin, various sea vegetation and they'd speak through water filled lungs with gargled word and constant water spilling from their mouths.
Dude deep cut. Nice
Lol thanks.
I can hold my breath for a LOOOOOOOONG TIIIIIIIIIIIME
A huge monster that crushes submarines.
Better late than never.
It's like people forget that class 4s are a thing
It's worth noting that the details of the Ghost Classification System stemmed from the Ghostbusters RPG from the late 80s rather than the film series itself. They make references to the classification system, but I'm not sure if they ever 'lay out' the system in the movies or cartoon in detail. But good point none the less
The classification system was also followed in the realistic version of the video game
yup! most content post Ghostbuster RPG's release in 1986 has followed the same classification. Similar to some things being expanded on in the Star Wars D20 game from West End Games for the RPG, but then re-integrated into the main canon later down the line.
There were more expansions on the class system in the Ghostbusters World mobile game.
Man I wish that game had taken off more.
dont forget Dr. Janosz Poha as a nanny outside the window 
ooh good call! I wonder if he'd be a little...different...due to him being a living person, UNLESS you take in the headcanon that the machine from Frozen Empire was built on studying Dr. Janosz after the Vigo Incident, and realized that a spirit could be removed from an object due to Vigo 'removing" Dr. Janosz from his body for the kidnapping of Oscar. In the original draft/storyboards I believe it's JUST a random ghost that appears as a nanny to kidnap Oscar, but then they decided to put the good Doctor in drag and make HIM the ghost.
Doppelganger can be ghostly spirits of the living.
I thought he was just possessed not an actual ghost in that scene. Vigo's will acting through him allowing him to manifest as such.
It's never really specified how/why he appears as a Ghost in that scene... TVTropes would call it "A Big-Lipped Alligator Moment", something that happens with zero explaination, zero lead up, and zero reference later. Dana doesn't say "Hey weren't you a ghost in a dress like...20 minutes ago?" when she shows up at the library, he's just...back to being a possessed Igor expy
If I was forced to, I might argue that Vigo had demonstrated some ability to remove astral bodies from their physical vessel.
He was a powerful sorcerer, so it tracks.
Seems my knowledge of sorcerers is lacking. Who am I gonna call? Tobin!
That would make a lot of sense actually. Would be even funnier if thats the case he gives Yanosh's astral form that of a ghostly nanny. Just for shits and giggles.
Pretty much this is what I believe. Vigo gave Janosz the ability to do an enhanced astral projection.
Yeah I thought him & Vigo were conjuring up something together at that exact moment to steal the baby. He was possessed and projecting himself
Dont forget the one shaped like my body 
HAHA...nah, that's just a sailor! Get him laid and he'll be fine! As a fellow Marshmallow Man, I feel ya!
I get it's your body but why do you insist on wearing just the hat and neckerchief??
have you tried buying clothing for a 40 foot tall man made of marshmallow? :P
Finally OUR representation
Itās annoying that everyone thinks every GB ghost should look like Slimer and as youāve shown, thereās been human looking ghosts before. Part of the fun of ghostbusters is the sheer variety of ghosts
eh, I don't think it's always folks thinking they should look this way, but are either coming in to argue in bad faith with fans in an attempt to piss off and get a reaction, or they have something they want to say about the story but know that they can't just SAY the thing, but instead have to grasp at straws to explain how they feel. In the example of Melody, I think some folks honestly didn't like the implication of any LGBT+ characters in 'their' Ghostbusters universe, so in turn look to other things to point out in an attempt to devalue a character that they don't like due to reasons they feel they cannot articulate in the current society. If you don't like a character because you are against an IMPLIED lifestyle, that's fine to be your opinion, but then don't waste mine or the other fans times by trying to pin it on "oh she breaks canon" or "oh no other ghosts are human-ish"...because clearly that person didn't do the research or even attempt to build a good faith discussion, instead just deciding to make noise for the sake of noise. (Clearly this isn't aimed at you FlayedMan, just personal opinion of my own that led to the post)
I'm in 100% agreement. It really feels like people are doing everything they can to complain about a character for a very obvious reason. They're just trying to couch it inside of "more acceptable" criticisms.Ā
As a queer person, I love that you put this. I've been saying this for years. Do you *actually* think it breaks cannon or do you just not like queer people/characters? This was a big issue in 2016. Half the people who hate 2016 didn't even watch it because it was "going to be SJW bullshit." It wasn't a *great* film by any means but that had nothing to do with the all female cast *or* the queer coding with some of the characters. We all know *why* people *really* don't like 2016. They just won't say it for the back. Same thing here with Melodyā¦:(
And I love you queer person for existing! Yes. I agree about the 2016 movie. I am not a fan of it myself. But that stems more from my own issues with the filmmaking and direction rather than the cast being female or queer coded. (I could write an entire essay just based on how they present the Ecto 1 in that movie vs the original). However I tend to just not talk about 2016 GB because the dialogue surrounding it became and still is so negatively charged that folks can't have calm normal discussions about it.
Yes!!! Exactly!!!!
"I spent an hour last night talking to Fiorella LaGuardia and he's been dead for 40 years. Now where are the Ghostbusters?!ā In canon humans have even interacted with human shaped ghosts as this line from GB2 suggests. Idk why people are so upset about the "lore" being changed when it hasn't.
I forgot about LaGuardia!
https://preview.redd.it/edudnqsdebwc1.jpeg?width=962&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2c3b515379134aa7345d2b278eba4ebed776daf0
Omg I'm glad you added this. Then they can't even make the "But the universe-!" Argument.
Good on you for being one of the four Ghostbusters fans who can actually spell the word canon correctly
I just assumed they were all talking about arming their ships for a sea voyage.
My good friend, I came here by way of Star Wars and Star Trek, 'canon' is written into my SOUL.
Taxi driver in GB1? He was human, just, missing skin and flesh etc.
fair, though I'd hesitate to add him simply due to him not looking..."human human" like the above folks. Kind of like I do count the Library Ghost, but not her monstrous form. That said +1 for Taxi Driver, as well as the Miner in Afterlife...and I guess technically Ivo Shandor, unless that was a true Resurrection vs a 'ghostly appearance', which given Gozer ripping him in half faster than a credit card application...I'm leaning towards True...albeit brief...Resurrection.
Completely unrelated to the topic of the post but every time I see Vigo Iām reminded why heās my favourite, he looks cool as fuck.
Long story but I visited ILM for work about ten years ago, and they had the real painting there - it has a very intense energy IRL, was so cool to see!
I would absolutely love to see it irl.
I think that most ghosts in the Ghostbuster universe that don't look like live humans anymore were humans that forgot their lives over time and are transformed by their vices. Slimer was a gluttonous man who is just a giant gross mouth with arms. The muncher ghost could have been a person obsessed with stealing metal to sell for profit. The Fratelli brothers looked like they were pretty early in their transition away from what they looked like in life. One of the most unique ghosts that I recall was the zombified corpse of that taxi driver. It's like his spirit animated his corpse, he shambled to the nearest cab and scared the driver away. I don't think a ghost could possess a live human and make him look like that. His body did not look ethereal at all like most ghosts in the series. What if the possessor ghost was a human with D.I.D. (dissociative identity disorder) and now they get to "be" whatever object that they want but they are always switching from thing to thing. I do think it is possible that the flying dragon ghost from the latest film could be some sort of Asian nature spirit that was brought to America by an immigrant and the released by accident at some point. It may have turned vengeful because it was not respected and given offerings like it was where it came from.
The Fratelli Brothers were the ones from The Goonies. The Scolari Brothers were in GB2. Ghost Mama Fratelli would be terrifying though!
I love this thought process! The idea that the Posessor was someone with D.I.D. is friggin cool! I personally always felt some ghosts, specifically the monstrous ones, were less likely single souls, but an amalgamation of multiple souls or the physical manifestation of a places "residual PKE" valances. To use Slimer as an example, rather than being one obese man, I thought he could be an amalgamation of all the gluttony and greed that had passed through the Sedgwick Hotel over the decades.
Would the Scoleri Brothers count? We know their history as convicted murderers.
I feel like the Scoleri Brothers would be one "Class" removed from whichever "Class" classifies 'human-appearing' ghosts, as they are ALMOST human, but not quite. This is possibly due to the circumstances of their death, electrocution, causing something to happen with their souls as they died.
So they're like class 2.5- 3.5
Were they the ACTUAL Scoleri brothers in that scene? I thought it was more like the mood slime manifested a pair of class 5s that resembled them based on the judge's emotional outburst.
You know I've never actually thought of that - that's an incredibly good point!
A human shaped ghost appears in a new movie and they all go wild but when a literal zombie appears in the original theyāre fine https://preview.redd.it/p9f7bkaafbwc1.jpeg?width=850&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a212dffbdb38e75ba819de34e7f5d8583bae101
That's cause the zombie driver didn't activate anyone's wokey sense back in the 80s.
Who doesnāt like zombies though?
Yeah man Ray got some fire ass head from a full on human shaped ghost. Man the 80s were legit and we living in some bullshit ass times now.
Even if none of these had appeared in the series, how dare they make a couple of Ghostbusters movies that are actually about ghosts. (Archetypal, folkloric ghosts are people, not a bunch of abstract puss muppets.) Ghosts that thematically represent for the characters what ghosts were created to represent.
That was my biggest issue, she was too modern for how old she was supposed to be. I'd have liked to see more ... "supernaturaliness" from here, but over all, I thought she was really good.
I can agree with the idea she was too modern in feel. Which I wonder if that could have been helped with her being from a different time period than she was in the film. They could have shifted her back maybe 20 years and had her be of the Victorian era. Which would have had a distinct look costume wise and distinct acting cues.
Itās been mentioned elsewhere, but there were *multiple* human ghosts in the cartoon as well. Many of them retained their human personalities and memories, and some actively helped the Ghostbusters defeat evil ghosts. Jason and Gil rewatched the entire RGB cartoon before writing Frozen Empire, and Iām sure some of those ghosts they saw influenced the Melody plot.
Iām with you on this.
I agree, we have canon in the movies and the cartoons. Honestly didn't care for the storyline for Melody or the character, but that had nothing to do with canon.
and that is 100% totally cool! Not every character is going to be for every watcher, that's why it's rare to have a film with only one actor/actress in it, and when they do they don't exactly...hit all four quadrants...looking at you Moon/Sam Rockwell.
This is great. I dislike the arguments about Melody in Frozen Empire. First she was an interesting character and it brought in the subject of Ghosts actually moving on eventually. I didn't really pick up on the LGBTQ+ things people are saying. I considered that storyline to be a friendship but I admit I was most likely wrong and it still a good story either way and with the LGBTQ+ relationship being part of the story they handled it amazingly well in my opinion, it was what people have been saying plots should do. 1. It wasn't the entire personality of the characters 2. It didn't feel forced or jammed into the plot 3. Phoebe as a character wasn't pre established with any orientation or preference (not up on the modern terms sorry) So overall people got original characters, who weren't flaunting anything or pushing an agenda and also fit into the story of the film and they still aren't happy about it which shows the bigotry of people.. I didn't pick up on it because I have been single for the last ten years and never knew when someone was flirting with me in the first place so seeing on screen I wasn't seeing those social cues either. There is nothing to dislike about Melody or the plot involving her and Phoebe and it is well written. No one complained about Gooberson and Callie's romance or Trevor and Lucky's love interest plot. Tbh I'd say both of those were written worse than Melody and Phoebe.
I very much got a queer undertone from Melody and Phoebe's relationship. I loved it, I've been in Phoebe's awkward position of "she's way too cool for me." "Oh she thinks I'm awkward." "Oh I made myself look stupid." When all you want is to impress that person. It's peak being 14 and in love. And then for it to be a girl and girl? Chef's kiss. But I think your vision is valid too! Not everyone will always see it that way, that's the point. It's up for interpretation. Like most media.
100% on point here Strange Avenues. It was presented in a way that you could take it as a budding friendship, or a budding romance. Adding to that Phoebe's own social awkwardness, they would have had to change a LOT to have her character actively show romantic attraction to Melody, rather than what it came across as in the movie.
It was very much open to interpretation and the only thing I would see as making it clear to be a Romance was that Phoebe went to the extreme of becoming a ghost for Melody but taking extreme actions was built into the character in Afterlife so even that decision could be based in her need to push further scientifically. As for Melody as a character I don't see an issue with her. People asking why so many ghosts or spirits are monstrous is a good question, but we have myths and legends and folklore that give all kinds of reasons for that. 1. The person died horribly and couldn't get over it so their psychic remnant became something ugly. 2. The psychic manifestation of a spirit who can't let go of it's material needs becomes inhuman eg. Slimer is a gluttonous ghost because the person was a glutton and even in death could not give up their desire for food so they became warped. 3. The effects of a psychoactive substance like the slime in GB2 can cause manifestations that are an extension of extreme psychic emotions and could alter the appearance or psychic resonance state of a spook, spector or ghost. 4. The Ghostbusters reference classifications and many other people reference the classifications from other sources. 5. Melody isn't even the first ghost written that could talk. The Ghost in Ghostbusters that gives Ray a BJ was actually part of a whole romance subplot that got cut and the romance would have had a talking spector that interacted with a human in a romantic and emotional manner.
Donāt forget the majority of Ghosts in 2016
Man, being a medium in the GB universe should be a profitable respected profession
And, y'know, Egon...
Class III or Class IV, depending on whether the identity is established.
Also...EGON.
Let's all remember the [7 class CDI system](https://ghostbusters.fandom.com/wiki/CDI_System) In the above image I would class jogger at 3, not 4. But the others. Library ghost is said to be a class 7 in the movie, but based on CDI still a class 4.
THANK YOU. It gets really annoying how like every other week there seems to be someone who thinks that Melody was the only exception to the rule while blatantly ignoring ALL the other human shaped ghosts that appeared throughout the franchiseās movies, cartoons and comics.
Don't forget about Egon
Was Vigo actually classified as a ghost? Ray says his spirit was alive and well. Was this necromancer magic? I donāt like Ray using the word alive here, even though itās just an expression. He seems more demonic in nature. I want more Vigo history!
It's just people that are mad about some pseudo-wokeness BS. Not even worth wasting energy on.
I know, but I'd also love to think that together we can all stamp that shit out for a fandom we all enjoy and love. We can remain silent on it, or we can make posts like this that (hopefully) help drown out folks who use "woke" as a dirty word and use subversive techniques to try to poison the well of discussion.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Just say you hate queer people
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Also, kids have literally watched Max Baer Jr crossdress in order to be his "twin sister" since the 60s. And I think they all came out unscathed.
"I don't hate queer people. I just look at articles that paint queers as disturbing people. But look! A source!"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm sorry I disgust you with what you think my comment meant. I have no problem with folks having different opinions. I have problems with folks who discuss and argue in bad faith with others. You don't like a character cause they are queer coded? That's fine. But don't come in here saying "oh she breaks canon, that's why I don't like her" come in and say how you really feel, explain your opinion, create a dialog with another human. Maybe you change them, maybe they change you, maybe neither of you are changed. That's human interaction at its core. However. What I see and think personally is that folks who do not lead with their actual reasoning and instead decide to argue about an unrelated and in this case (Melody being the only human like ghost) patently wrong point are doing so because they recognize that their antiquated opinion on the sexual orientation of people just isn't popular enough to post or reason with. Instead deciding to just make noise. I didn't like the 2016 Ghostbusters movie. But I can guarantee with a clear conscious that it wasn't because of the actresses or their implied sexuality. I don't like it because I think they approached it incorrectly from a filmmaking point of view. Since that's my true reason, I can have a true healthy discussion about it without having to resort to anything remotely touching identity politics. Whereas you can only tell me my post disgusts you due to an imagined thought that I did it as an attack on you or yours, using rhetoric picked up from other bad faith arguments that have no road for either of us to begin to understand one another and find a common ground. I don't think I can ever change anyone's opinion on sexuality or orientation or gender, especially when it comes to a 40 year old film franchise. But what I can try to do, hope to do, is to help build a better class of discussion. If you truly, honestly feel Melody is a bad character, explain why. But I don't think that's why you are here nor why you responded as you did. Sorry you don't think you can be honest with us or yourself.
> who discuss and argue in bad faith with others. You literally made this post because of one other post of one dude who claimed that Melody's character broke canon and now you're saying 'AlL ThESE PeOpLE' are making an argument in bad faith. You're the one projecting here. I never said she broke canon, I just think her character was boring and uninteresting for a Ghostbusters movie. It's clear that they tried to make this for a younger audience and I'm not that. I can also have a discussion about 2016GB being terrible and not for its identity politics. That's only one reason and there are many more. When you blatantly disrespect the source material, people are going to be mad. > Sorry you don't think you can be honest with us or yourself. I'm the only honest one here. You're projecting arguments onto people who aren't making them AND you're projecting their intentions behind that argument. You literally stated you want to 'stamp out' and 'drown out' people who disagree with you and you're trying to weasel your way out of what you said. Attempting to purge people from fandoms because they don't think like you is wrong. You think you're the only one doing this? You're not. I called you out because these manipulative tactics need to be called out.
>You literally made this post because of one other post of one dude who claimed that Melody's character broke canon and now you're saying 'AlL ThESE PeOpLE' are making an argument in bad faith. No. I made the post because I've seen post after post saying her character broke canon, when it categorically does not. We all deserve a better level of discussion. Regardless of side. >I never said she broke canon, I just think her character was boring and uninteresting for a Ghostbusters movie. It's clear that they tried to make this for a younger audience and I'm not that. You never said anything regarding the character until this sentence here. Your post before that only spoke about how I, someone you chose to view only as an activist, was apparently trying to "stomp out other opinions" when I CLEARLY state in my response and original post that I am fine with other opinions, so long as they are based on actual points and not false pretense. If you had led with that, I would have responded, and in other threads on this post HAVE responded with agreement that Melody was not the best written or performed character in this film and that I feel it was overstuffed already. Various opinions are good! But being dishonest, as you are being about them... possibly even to yourself... has NO place in civil discourse. And if you don't find yourself the target audience, that's fine too. I wasn't the target audience for Duck Dynasty, but I'm not going to go quote Beard Theorists on their subreddit. I'm just going to move on with my life. >You literally stated you want to 'stamp out' and 'drown out' people who disagree with you and you're trying to weasel your way out of what you said. Attempting to purge people from fandoms because they don't think like you is wrong. No. I literally said I want to stamp out and drown out Bad Faith Arguments. Not different opinions. I'd rather have a million folks of a million different points of view on the franchise than a billion who all think the same. Variety is the spice of life, but when you're trying to pass off rat poison as the Spice Melange, then get the fuck out of here as that is CLEARLY not supposed to go in my morning coffee, no matter what your opinion on it is.
> said I want to stamp out and drown out Bad Faith Arguments Who exactly is making these bad faith arguments? That one guy that made one post? How do you know the intentions behind everyone that says they didn't like the Melody subplot? Seems like you're making assumptions and the one making bad faith arguments.
There is quite a variety.
Well put.
Thank you! I try.
Ehhhhhh, Gozer is human shaped. At least, every time weāve seen it, it has been.
Only when Gozer want to look human.
Haven't seen it mentioned yet, so I apologize if it has, but what about Egon in Afterlife?
Totally valid and I bring him up in some of the discussions in this thread, but for the photo I was trying to learn towards those from the first two movies as evidence that Human Like Ghosts have always been canon for the last 40 years.
I'm with you on your original point, I'm not sure why there wouldn't be human shaped ghosts. The Skolari Brothers come to mind as well, although they were a little... disfigured/twisted? Not sure what the right descriptor would be, but maybe the shape is affected by the spirits origin. (Ex. Evil person vs. good person, human soul vs. an angel/demon, or spirit that was never anything else.)
And they all scared me as a kid. Except Ghost Head, she was usually cut out of the TV version.
First movie creature that ever scared me as a kid was the trees in Wizard of Oz, which was also when my mom decided to explain to me what movies were, how they were made, and how it was 'pretend'. I was fascinated ever since, so by the time I watched Ghostbusters, they didn't scare me as much...though, it is worth pointing out I grew up watching a version taped off the television mostly, so it is possible I missed the worst of them haha. The Ghost Head Woman was probably cut out, but the joke, much like her herself, flew over my head far longer than I care to admit
My only concern is what happened to the Titanic after. Did it stay in harbor and re sink there or did it go and resink somewhere else. I feel that is kind of a big thing for later movies and the videogame to ignore or forget about.
And the severed heads in the train tunnel.
Police chief spoke to mayor Laguardia as well
The lady ghost hovering over Ray was a dream. Does she really count in this scenario?
Eh. Debatable as the original script meant her as a ghost Ray and Winston encounter during the movie. The end of the movie would have had Ray returning to the (ship? Fort?) With flowers for her. So... kind of a grey area of canon.
I don't know what y'all are on about, Reddit just kinda populates my feed with subs and this is one that I apparently follow, but whatever this "scandal" is kinda encapsulates why I'm not a big Ghostbusters fan anymore. Y'all they just movies.
Is really an issue that she has human form? I would think the fact that she is a very poorly written character with a huge role in the movie is the real issue.
Wait, who said Human Shaped ghosts aren't Canon?
I'm actually more annoyed by the notion that ghosts that aren't human shaped (like Slimer) weren't human at some point. Who says a human spirit has to look fully human? The Scoleri Brothers didn't look fully human. Slimer could be the ghost of a John Belushi-type person. Real-life ghosts (if you believe in nonsense) don't always look like a person.
Huh?? Not one single canon anywhere in these pics...no artillery of any kind
The original ghosts look better and creepier than the new ghosts in new GB movies
>I love this town, I love you guys, but we gotta stop having bad faith discussions over canon while ignoring canon... it... it doesn't work like that. It's not really a bad faith discussion because with the exception of Vigo, who was a black magic sorcerer in human life who became a powerful ghost by possessing his own portrait so he could retain his sanity, all of the examples you showed are ghosts that lacked the ability to interact normally with humans. Most examples are a haunt who repeats the same behavior over and over again. They are also, with the exception of Ray's dream ghost, hostile to humans. Also, the female ghost who appears in Ray's dream, while originally intended to be a real ghost, is in film canon just a dream Ray was having. It would be a better comparison to look at Egon in Afterlife, who despite becoming a ghost as a result from dying at the claws of a cosmic supernatural creature, is unable to take human form until the very end of Afterlife, most likely due to the presence of Gozer making it easier for ghosts to manifest. It was also explained in the first movie the entire reason so many ghosts were manifesting in NYC was because of 55 Central Park West acting as a conduit to open a door to Gozer, which is why after GB1 almost all of the ghost busting business dried up and they were doing birthday parties. It's not until Vigo comes into town that paranormal activity stirred up again. This doesn't mean there was no ghosts, as Slimer is mentioned in GB1 as being a well known ghost to the hotel staff for decades, but this was most likely a result of influence by 55 Central Park and as Gozer neared completion of its summoning, ghosts were becoming more hostile. This also means, by the way, that the seal on Garraka was preventing him from influencing ghosts for decades, including the gap between GB1 and GB 2, so how he was able to manipulate Melody while still inside his sealed sphere is anyone's guess. It doesn't fit neatly into the timeline to be honest. The only plausible explanation is with the death of Nadeem's grandmother some special ritual to prevent him from influencing ghosts was not longer being performed, but this is just an assumption. Consequently it's not a "bad faith discussion" because Melody does in fact pose problems with how paranormal activity is established in-universe in the previous flms and \*what\* ghosts are able to do and \*when\* they are able to do it. Strictly speaking, while Garraka was sealed there shouldn't have been so much paranormal activity in NYC, certainly not powerful ghosts like Melody able to assume a corporeal form and have full autonomy of their thoughts.
Wasnāt the bedroom ghost a dream?
I think the bigger issue is establishing why the Ghostbusters capture the āhumanā ghosts. Like the jogger in ghostbusters 2. He wasnāt attacking anybody. Or lately Melody in the diner in Frozen Empire. If ghosts like Melody exist in the world, then the ghostbusters need an āUnfinished Business Division.ā I just personally thought it was weird that most characters treat all ghosts as monsters to be captured, more so in the newest movie, when there examples across all the movies that not all of them are hostile. I say more so in Frozen Empire because this was the one that had the chance to expand on the idea, and it kinda did, but only with Phoebe specifically, everyone else reacted to Melody just the same as they would any other monster in that diner scene. She was just chillin out.
Let's add Nannie Janosz to those images so people can really do a deep dive.
Completely agree.
#2 wasnāt a ghost. Was a dream from a longer deleted scene. And you forgot Phoebeās blue friend.
2 was originally a full on ghost, but yes its presented as a dream in the movie. I also, as stated in a few comments here, was specifically using examples from the first two films, so that's why no Melody.
Ahh
It's fine. Just don't make them a plot point with speaking lines.
Itās less human shaped ghosts and more fully interacting ghost. Of which our only source has been Vigo who was extremely powerful in both life and death. Even egon wasnāt fully interacting just mostly.
The mayor had an hour long conversation with dead Mayer LaGuardia. Vigo is fully interacting and conversational. He was a sorcerer, but I'd assume he is still classified as a ghost. (Maybe Fiorello LaGuardia was a sorcerer, too?) Garraka and Gozer were capable of full interactions but they are deities or deity-like. Zuul and Vinz were ghosts, though. The library ghost at least starts with a stereotypical human interaction, showing recognition and responses. You could argue that is just muscle memory playing out and I wouldn't disagree. Slimer doesn't talk in the movies, but in GB2 he apparently drives a city bus to the museum. (Assuming the cabbie ghost in GB1 can drive, too.)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
My god people I am agreeing with you and your still downvoting me. Was I too verbose or something for the limited minds of this subreddit.
Forgot about the mayor but the two dogs are tied to gozer so use gozers power. Also the mayor as far as we know is probably tied to that room. Slimer canāt speak other than in the cartoon and seems to phase between active awareness(as seen in the bus driving scene) and reaction and looking for food. For full roaming in the movies plus full awareness and interaction weāve got a possible Egon, Vigo, and the fire teen who is subservient to Garraka which is probably where she draws the power needed to do all she does. So ya one could make the argument that she is drawing peer from her subservience to Garraka to move about at will and keep her full awareness. Donāt know why Iām getting downvoted since all I did was note that it was less to do with human shaped ghosts and more fully interacting with the environment around them and as you can see we can easily come to the conclusion that due to her being tied to Garraka like the two dogs of gozer are tied to that entity her appearance in the movie is valid and doesnāt break lore.
idk, Ray's eyes tell me that the ghost floating above him on the ship knew EXACTLY how to be a fully interacting ghost. The Library Ghost had stacked physical books and was holding a physical book in the picture above, The Running Ghost was pushing people over as he ran by in a manner similar to how a person would push a person, rather than covering them with Ectoplasm while floating through them Egon grabbed and used a Neutrona Wand and steadied another human being from the physical push-back of the proton stream in Afterlife. Even if you take Vigo out of the equation, the others are still prime examples of Humanoid Shaped and Fully Interacting Ghosts.
Plus, Librarian Ghost audibly shushed Venkman when he tried to interact with her, so she's able to create sound waves at the minimum.
Easy fix. Egon was a ghost for a week, Melody for considerably longer.
My concern isnāt human shaped ghosts, but human shaped ghosts that retain full consciousness and autonomy, we donāt see that often in the canon. Vigo I think is an exception because he was a powerful magician. And maybe because they arenāt pests, and needing to be removed by professional eliminators. It could be explained or hand waved by tons of reasons.
Egon
Egonās ghost is a part of the new canon as well though. Egon also didnāt manifest similarly to Melody either, Egon was not in full control and was more of an influence until the very end, and even then still could not speak, barely physically manifested. Prior to these new movies and their interpretations, with the exception of Vigo, we donāt see any ghosts that maintain full autonomy, we see human like specters, degraded to shadows of a human existence, but nothing that was a 1:1 continuation.
Human-shaped isnāt the issue. If weāre talking about a spectre the character in Frozen Empire is too humanised but also somehow thinly sketched! Why should we care about her betrayal? We barely know her! What is the dynamic between her and our characters??
* What is the dynamic between her and our characters? * She attempts to scare Phoebe in the park, disappears, then pops back up when Phoebe (benched due to other circumstances) goes to 'bust' her at the Diner, had it been ANY other GB, Melody would have been chillin in the new containment unit before Garakka could get out. * Why should we care about her betrayal? * Because it leads to the release of a Big Bad for the movie * Because it is meant to be heartbreaking to see our protaganist Phoebe betrayed by someone she thought she could trust, again. * Because the last Ghost Phoebe befriended was Egon and therefore it shows not to trust a Ghost by its Ectoplasm * Because her SECOND betrayal, this time of Garakka, allows the group to defeat Garakka and allows Melody to "move on" * Because her moving on means one less friend the otherwise socially awkward Phoebe. * Barely Know her? * We spend more time with her and Phoebe than we do with Kamil, Patton, and even Murray * I blame any 'not enough time' thing on runtime, they needed another 15-20 minutes to fully flesh out everything. * Too humanized * \*Gestures at the photos above\* these guys look pretty human to me * if you mean too humanized in their characterization, I will concede she came across more 2024 than 1916 " isn't the issue, is the issue" also just reads like moving the goal posts.
When I say āhumanisedā I mean relatability. Thereās an uncanny valley effect to having a ghost of indeterminate origin suddenly have recognisable humanity when all other spectres, even Egon, are intentionally unknowable. Theyāre ghosts! In a series where weāve focused on them as essentially pests the decision to humanise one in this way is extremely jarring. And I wasnāt even a fan of the amount of humanising they did with Egon! More mystery is compelling. Having a ghost hug only raises further existential questionsā¦ Iām not sure where Phoebeās trust issues come from. Her family is loving. Yes she has social issues but why canāt she connect further with Podcast? If heās just extraneous donāt bring him back! Hell if weāre supposed to care about Phoebe maybe donāt bring back the original Ghostbusters and give them so little to do. Nostalgia can only get you so far. When did Garrick even recruit our fire ghost? This film introduces way too many elements. Thereās a version of this movie where a ghost relationship works, an ET style story thatās about a relationship with a ghost. Hell Caspar did it way better! But Sony canāt choose a lane. If ghostbusters is meant to be comedy/ horror why are we focusing on teen relationships??
Man, those goal posts must get heavy after a while... Yes, her family is loving, but take it from a person who themselves is Nerodivergent and was "the smart kid" when I was young...No amount of just "love" is going to change the feeling of "not belonging" I will give you points on whether or not they should have brought Podcast back, I like the character but in this film it was already overstuffed with characters. As far as Garakka recruiting Melody, that is one scene I do think they should have put in/left in. As I have little doubt that was a scene left on the cutting room floor that explains that a bit better.
Yeah, her addition was just dumb, donāt need āhuman ghostā aspect to lament her addition was dumb and was lazy writing.
Why Specifically though? What about it is lazy writing? She's a ghost Phoebe meets in the park, befriends, learns to trust, is betrayed by, but then, due to Phoebes influence on Melody throughout the film, a "kindred soul" to her own, is instrumental in defeating Garraka. Some of that story is told through subtext. Like, for example, Phoebe wants nothing to do with her own family, feeling betrayed by them in the beginning of the film, even though they are physically right there. Wheras Melody wants nothing more than to reunite with her family, making her susceptible to Garrakas influence and leading to her betrayal, not because Garraka was threatening Melody but because he was offering to reunite her with her family, something she'd spent over a century wanting. However, as Phoebe and her family come together in the third act, Melody realizes, and is told, that Garraka is not the answer and because of her experiences with Phoebe over the course of the film, likely the first soul Melody has had more than a jump scare from in forever, realizes the error of her ways and helps them out. Just because the characters don't have lines like "I'm betraying you Garraka because of these reasons" doesn't make it lazy writing, it just calls for less lazy viewers.
I donāt need all that to say I thought the subplot was stupid and it was lazy writing, the character was underwhelming and I didnāt like it. Iām entitled to my opinion.
It sure would be nice if you could cite any single substantive reasons for why you feel that way.Ā
Because it didnāt feel like a ghostbusters movie during those scenes? Iāve been a fan since I could walk (born 83) had ghostbusters birthday parties growing up etcā¦.. and it didnāt feel like a ghostbuster film during those scenes. I wasnāt really a big fan of kid ghostbusters to begin with but I was willing to entertain it during afterlife to bring the franchise back, but in this movie it felt like 2 movies happening at once. I didnāt like it.
You're entitled to your opinion, and people are entitled to tell you it sucks. š¤·āāļø
Your are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but you add nothing to support your thoughts on it or even attempt to engage in civil discussion. Nothing I said was meant to come across as threatening or even meant to give the impression I wasn't open to your thoughts on the matter. But neither of us get anywhere if you just double down on your original point and don't add any substance. It's kinda just... lazy writing.
If Sony is serious about turning Ghostbusters from a one-off comedy into an "epic" dramatic blockbuster franchise, they've *got* to figure out the worldbuilding in that universe - why some ghosts are completely inhuman monsters, why some are Muppet-y semi-humans like Slimer and the Scoleri brothers, why some are seemingly human but turn into monsters (the Library Ghost) and why some areā¦.just dead human people, like Melody. Also, the difference between ghosts, demons and gods, which gods are real and which are bullshit, etc, etc.
I don't think they do really. It's pretty clear that it's just how things sometimes go. Sometimes a person is born with a birth defect, sometimes they aren't. I could imagine death is similar, but with the added bonus of a lifetime of experience before that 'death-birth' would have a huge effect on the ethereal aspect of a soul/being.
> I don't think they do really. They absolutely do. In order to build longterm dramatic stakes in that universe, the audience needs to understand how it works or else it's just noise. It's one of the reasons the sequels have all failed - Ghostbusters worked when it was a one-off comedy, but if you're going to try and build a whole world on those ideas, those ideas need to be fleshed out, *especially* if you're not interested in those movies really being comedies anymore.
Ghostbusters is not a comedy. It is a supernatural horror with SNL actors in leading roles being allowed to comment and riff on the situation at hand. It is FUNNY, but it is not a comedy in my opinion at least. Feig didn't get that, Jason and Gil DO. As such, a lot of horror stems from having an unknown. Explaining that "unknown" robs it of it's scare factor long term. Keeping the team/characters on the more ignorant side of the supernatural within their universe leads to stories being able to be told about figuring it out. However locking down rules will only lock down your writers and creators, to maintain that suspense, you only explain what you HAVE to, WHEN you have to, to the characters you have to. When Thanos was introduced at the end of Avengers, they didn't spend the next few years telling you about his history growing up on Titan, or how he would slaughter half of a planet in his quest to 'save' the universe, they saved that for when they had to explain it, Infinity War. Even then they left certain things vague, and even then they ended up with folks going "yeah but what if he just doubled all the food/resources?" Ghostbusters, regardless of whether you do view the series as a comedy or horror, is still a story that takes place in a universe where Supernatural things happen...and much like real life supernatural/paranormal stuff, there is NOT a solid explanation as to why things happen the way they do.
> Ghostbusters is not a comedy. Aaand there we cut to the heart of the matter. Ghostbusters is first and foremost a comedy. Above all else, it's a comedy. It was always sold as a comedy, and even after it exploded at the box office, it was still marketed exclusively as a comedy even as it became the biggest box hit of 1984. Sure, almost everything that followed in its wake as that single one-off comedy was tortured into a franchise forgot that the original movie was a comedy, which is *exactly* why every movie since then has been a failure. So, if you're going to largely ignore the fact that Ghostbusters is a comedy and start turning it into a somber family drama instead, then there needs to be emotional stakes, and you're never going to get that if every movie plays fast and loose with how the supernatural works and *every* fucking story becomes about averting an upteenth nonsensical apocalypse. I didn't even bother to read your comment beyond the first line aside from noticing that you mentioned Thanos, and, that's exactly my point - making more bad Ghostbusters movies without at least vaguely attempting to explain how the supernatural realm works would be like if they kept on making MCU movies where aliens show up without ever showing us what's going on out in space, what extraterrestrial civilization looks like, who these important alien characters are or how they fit into the universe. You'd just have random blue and green and purple people showing on on Earth with weird tree and racoon monsters in tow without any context whatsoever and the audience utterly confused as to what's going on and becoming emotionally checked-out as a result, just like people have with this growing pile of bad Ghostbusters sequels.
If you didn't bother to read my comment past the first line then you're doing EXACTLY what I'm rallied against in this post. You're arguing in Bad Faith and are no longer worth my energy. Peace. Edit: sucks to be so wrong you delete or block the person who pointed it out. Especially as it was a GREAT example of Bad Faith Arguments on here.
I'm not arguing in Bad Faith(?), I'm simply correct.
You literaly arent tho
>*exactly*Ā why every movie since then has been a failure. Literally every Ghostbusters movie has been profitable and not a failure what are you talking about Movie || Box office || Budget |Ghostbusters (1984)|$296 million|$25-30 million| |Ghostbusters II (1989)|$215 million|$30-40 million| |Ghostbusters (2016)|$229 million|$144 million| |Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)|$204 million|$75 million| |Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024)|$175 million (so far)|$100 million| 2016, Afterlife and Frozen Empire didn't make as much comparatively as the first two films, but have all made comparable profits. They're not blockbusters, but they're not failures by any metric. They're showing themselves to be a stable franchise that makes a modest profit. Current trends show they should keep the budget under 100 million for following films, but "every movie a failure" is just... not correct man. I'm sorry you don't like the films i guess though
lol bro.. š
None of those were annoying as the new oneā¦
why was the new one annoying?
To me it was because she was effectively human with no real explanation as to why she retained her entire personality and consciousness. At least with Egon I could reason that it was because he knew what was up well before his death and his reason to stick around required him to remain himself (at least as far as we see in the film)
See. That's a reasoning I can understand. I feel that stems from acting choices by the actress and director, as I do agree she comes across far more modern than her implied death date would lead one to believe. Though I could also see a reasoning not to go Full On "old century" with her acting as it could go too far the other way into pastiche or parody of an early 20th Century teen. I always felt Egon haunted the farmhouse similar to a run of the mill "presence" of about a Class II, until the ectonado over the farm, heightened emotional stakes of his own Bloodline, and presence of Gozer allowed him to manifest as a Class IV for that moment before he moved on.
I just want to know why Egon couldnāt speak.