Page 1 of 1

On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 30th, 2023, 1:23 am
by RichardLess
9 times out of 10 the best sequels carry over the main talent in front and BEHIND the camera. Godfather 1 and 2 were both shot by Gordon Willis & scored by Nina Rota. Indiana Jones 1-3 had more or less the same crew doing the lighting, music, visual effects and production design. Star Wars was a bit different since each of the original trilogy changed directors, but the music, production design, and concept art and FX were all largely done by the same crew. Nolan’s TDK trilogy, the Back to the Future trilogy. All largely done by the same talent behind and in front of the camera

Ghostbusters 1 has a very distinct feel and aesthetic. It’s got a strong sense of what it is. Ivan Reitman has some really good and involving shots in the first film. Think of the steadicam shot of the GB’s descending down the library stairs, Egon with the PKE meter in hand, Elmer Bernstein’s eerie score playing in the background. There’s a very serious tone established. The cinematography is naturalistic, gritty and grainy. Nothing is stylized. But it’s very much a movie that feels like it belongs in New York & created by the comedy icons of the “middle finger to the establishment” era. Ivan Reitman had the pick of the litter for behind the scenes talent. It’san insanely impressive line up for a comedy. John Decuir on production design, Laslo Kovac’s as DP, Elmer Bernstein as composer.. Add in Richard Edlund as VFX Supervisor and those are some heavy hitters.

Then we get Ghostbusters 2. And let me just say upfront..I LOVE Ghostbusters 2. I do. But gone is the gritty, grimy feeling. Almost everyone behind the scenes is new. And again Reitman picks some of the best of the best for a lot of the new crew. New cinematographer, one known oddly enough for his gritty New York Martin Scorsese movies, Michael Chapman. Having Michael Chapman do the cinematography for GB2 would be as if it was announced someone like Emmanuel Lubezki, Roger Deakins or Robert Richardson were doing the lighting on GB4. And yet..GB2 started the change in Chapman’s overall oeuvre. Everything is clean, composed, no diffusion or much grain. Very safe. Very…corporate feeling. Then on production design we have Bo Welch. And again…we have one of the top production designers of that era. Hell..of any era. And yet compared to Ghostbusters 1 GB2 is very safe, sterile and unassuming in its design. There’s none of the gothic German Expressionism from Bo Welch’s Tim Burton/Barry Sonnenfeld work. Then on music we have Randy Edelman who…creates a very odd but rising theme for the GB’s but also some bland and quite dated music.
This time we have legend Dennis Murren and ILM doing FX work. It’s a veritable whose who of 1980s/90s top tier talent.

And yet…Ghostbusters 2 plays it very safe. We have very few if any of the dynamic camera move from Reitman this time out(the aforementioned steadicam shot or the 180 spin around Dana to reveal the kitchen door from GB1). For all the extreme creative talent involved we have a very normal looking movie. A good looking movie no doubt. But not unique. Not aesthetically interesting. It just…is. It looks like Bill Murray walked of the Scrooged set and onto the GB2 set and nothing changed.

GB2 definitely feels more like a corporate product. It has the same style of jokes and pace. It’s funny. But there’s none of the grit and grime. I always like comparing Ghostbusters and Indiana Jones. An Indiana Jones film is very easy to define. We know what it SHOULD look, sound and smell like. Same with Star Wars.

Ghostbusters doesn’t have that. And I wonder if all that goes back to all the creative behind the scenes talent switch over they had on the sequel. If GB2 has that same gritty and grime style as GB1…does the films tonal message about bad vibes play better? Does it help critics and audiences accept the story a little more? Did any of those original crew members offer suggestions(like John De Cuir did) for story beats on this imaginary GB2? Does BOSS film make the ghosts a little more terrifying and a little less cartoony? One wonders.

And more than anything…does it help define what a Ghostbusters movie looks, sounds and feels like? And does that make the franchise stronger and less vulnerable to rebooting/remaking?

Because after GB2 we now had two Ghostbusters movies that looked and felt very different from one another. The Smokey PG13 boundary pushing gritty New York of the early 1980s in GB1 and the more corporate cartoony and safe sequel.

I just don’t know. Again I love GB2. I love the looks of the ghosts, some of the music, the changes ILM made to the proton streams. But I think doing all that crew change over hurt the franchise overall in the long term. Maybe Paul Feig feels like GB is too established in its tone and style to mess with something that works had Reitman not done a creative overhaul on GB2. Maybe? If GB2 looked, felt and smelt like GB1, does it improve audience perception, critical evaluation and the overall legacy? What does that do to the development of GB3?

Something to think about.

PS. Here’s a deleted scene excerpt from an early GB2 draft from 8/5/88 (when the draft had bugs being the sign of evilness is afoot & not the river of slime. So picture this scene but instead of bugs it’s Slime in the finished film. This would fit PERFECTLY with the aesthetic of film 1). This is the type of edge GB2 needed. It’s a great bit and it’s a shame they didn’t use it.


EXT. EAST SIDE TOWNHOUSE - DUSK
CUT TO:
The spectacular rococo-style private mansion is the residence of LEONA and AUBREY WELLESLEY. Matching Rolls-Royce convertibles are parked out front.
LEONA (off camera):
“Aubrey, this is just impossible. I cannot and I will not wear those same old pearls to the Hoskins' dinner party. It is simply too much to ask.”
INT. THE LIVING ROOM ~ CONTINUOUS
LEONA WELLESLEY, a fabulously tanned and expensively dressed woman in her early fifties is haranguing her husband who is off—stage in the adjacent study.
LEONA:
“The last thing in the world I need
to do is to walk into Helen Hoskins' party wearing those hopeless little pearls.”
INT. THE STUDY - CONTINUOUS
AUBREY WELLESLEY, silver-haired, handsome and also very tan, is sitting at his leather-topped desk quietly loading a nickel-plated .38 caliber revolver.
LEONA (o.c.)
“It's just too humiliating for words. And I hope you're not planning on wearing that same old dinner jacket. Honestly, Aubrey, Cynthia Powell actually snickered when you walked in wearing that dreadful old rag. It makes you look like a Cuban bandleader.”
(CONTINUED)

Aubrey finishes loading the gun, snaps the cylinder closed, and gives it a spin.

LEONA She primps in a gilded mirror, still prattling vainly.
LEONA:
“No, you need a new tuxedo and I'm
going to Cartier first thing tomorrow morning and buy that emerald necklace. I need it, I want it, and that's all there is to it.”

A PAINTING ON THE WALL
An Old Master, some beautiful bucolic pastoral. Slowly, from behind one corner of it's ornate gold frame, a bristling, seemingly unending line of cockroaches marches out, travels down the wall onto a credenza and across a silver tea service.
LEONA (o.c.)
“You know who's going to be there, don't you? Pietro deLago, the artist who did those fabulous trompel'oeilFrenchwindowsfor Elva Russell's breakfast nook in the Hamptons.”

AUBREY He enters the living room holding the loaded gun.

LEONA (oblivious):
“You should have seen how he looked at me at Elva's luncheon. Be careful, Aubrey. I may just run off with him.”

CEILING

Roaches are streaming from the base of the elaborate chandelier and crawling downward over the dangling crystal pendants.
(CONTINUED)

LEONA (o.c.) :
“You may not know it, but a lot of men find me extremely attractive.”

THE FLOORBOARDS
Silverfish and millipedes by the thousands pour forth from under an antique Oriental carpet and swarm across the highly-polished hardwood floor.
LEONA
She pours herself a glass of champagne from a bottle of Dom Perignon in a silver ice bucket.
AUBREY
LEONA:
“But then you don't seem to notice anything about me anymore.”

He raises the pistol and aims at Leona who looks up and sees him pointing the revolver at her.
LEONA (misreading his
intention)
“Not another new pistol! It's fine for you to buy expensive guns and things but when I want something--“

He grits his teeth and is just about to shoot when suddenly a roach drops from the chandelier and lands in Leona's champagne glass. She screams and drops the glass as roaches start dropping like buzz bombs from the ceiling. Aubrey looks up and sees the incredible swarm of insects and starts firing wildly at the ceiling.


Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 30th, 2023, 2:36 am
by Chicken, He Clucked
It would've made Vigo's painting much creepier if bugs, monsters, demons crawled out of it. Prefer that idea to the overuse of slime.

Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 30th, 2023, 3:14 am
by mrmichaelt
Elmer Bernstein not returning is not on Ivan Reitman. Bernstein was asked but he declined GB2 because he didn't want to get typecasted after doing several comedies in a row. So Ivan Reitman asked Randy Edleman which made sense because they were already working together on Twins. Originally from Newsweek 114, no. 9 (August 1989).

This Newsweek article was recently used and quoted in A Convenient Parallel Dimension: How Ghostbusters Slimed Us Forever on page 122. "Elmer Bernstein chose not to provide an orchestral score for Ghostbusters II. The composer turned down two other comedies during that same period, deciding instead to write music for the drama My Left Foot. He hoped it would lead to more work in that vein. "You know this town," Bernstein said. "You become typecast. I sometimes think this is the only place in the world where it's harder to fight your way down from the top than up from the bottom. You figure it out." Reitman hired Twins composer Randy Edelman in Bernstein's place."

Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 30th, 2023, 4:49 am
by Bison256
Chicken, He Clucked wrote: January 30th, 2023, 2:36 am It would've made Vigo's painting much creepier if bugs, monsters, demons crawled out of it. Prefer that idea to the overuse of slime.
It was supposed to be more creepy. Vigo was literally going to walk out of the picture. Look up the footage it's great. But it wasn't finished because they ran out of time.

Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 30th, 2023, 11:50 am
by RichardLess
mrmichaelt wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:14 am Elmer Bernstein not returning is not on Ivan Reitman. Bernstein was asked but he declined GB2 because he didn't want to get typecasted after doing several comedies in a row. So Ivan Reitman asked Randy Edleman which made sense because they were already working together on Twins. Originally from Newsweek 114, no. 9 (August 1989).

This Newsweek article was recently used and quoted in A Convenient Parallel Dimension: How Ghostbusters Slimed Us Forever on page 122. "Elmer Bernstein chose not to provide an orchestral score for Ghostbusters II. The composer turned down two other comedies during that same period, deciding instead to write music for the drama My Left Foot. He hoped it would lead to more work in that vein. "You know this town," Bernstein said. "You become typecast. I sometimes think this is the only place in the world where it's harder to fight your way down from the top than up from the bottom. You figure it out." Reitman hired Twins composer Randy Edelman in Bernstein's place."
Hmm. I think there’s some half truths in that. Is he actually quoted as saying “I was offered GB2 and turned it down”?

I think he and Ivan Reitman’s relationship fell apart. Legal Eagles was the last time they worked together. We know Elmer wasn’t happy about his music getting replaced by sourced songs in the first film.

Twins is the key. That’s the first time he hadn’t used Bernstein. But the fact that Bernstein went to work on comedies again and the fact that he and Ivan never worked together again is telling.

Regardless…Ivan still could’ve carried over Elmer’s themes or hired a composer that wasn’t so tonally different. It’s quite jarring the difference between the two.

Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 30th, 2023, 1:35 pm
by jg2
RichardLess wrote: January 30th, 2023, 11:50 am
mrmichaelt wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:14 am Elmer Bernstein not returning is not on Ivan Reitman. Bernstein was asked but he declined GB2 because he didn't want to get typecasted after doing several comedies in a row. So Ivan Reitman asked Randy Edleman which made sense because they were already working together on Twins. Originally from Newsweek 114, no. 9 (August 1989).

This Newsweek article was recently used and quoted in A Convenient Parallel Dimension: How Ghostbusters Slimed Us Forever on page 122. "Elmer Bernstein chose not to provide an orchestral score for Ghostbusters II. The composer turned down two other comedies during that same period, deciding instead to write music for the drama My Left Foot. He hoped it would lead to more work in that vein. "You know this town," Bernstein said. "You become typecast. I sometimes think this is the only place in the world where it's harder to fight your way down from the top than up from the bottom. You figure it out." Reitman hired Twins composer Randy Edelman in Bernstein's place."
Hmm. I think there’s some half truths in that. Is he actually quoted as saying “I was offered GB2 and turned it down”?

I think he and Ivan Reitman’s relationship fell apart. Legal Eagles was the last time they worked together. We know Elmer wasn’t happy about his music getting replaced by sourced songs in the first film.

Twins is the key. That’s the first time he hadn’t used Bernstein. But the fact that Bernstein went to work on comedies again and the fact that he and Ivan never worked together again is telling.

Regardless…Ivan still could’ve carried over Elmer’s themes or hired a composer that wasn’t so tonally different. It’s quite jarring the difference between the two.
Even though I ended up not using any of it in the book, I interviewed Elmer's son Peter for "Parallel Dimension" and he said plain and simple, his father didn't do "GBII" because he wanted to get away from comedies. Peter made it sound like Elmer always just kinda did what he wanted to do, following his drive regardless of how it affected his career.

Also, according to Ivan's personal assistant on "Ghostbusters" Amy Friedman, he tried to get everyone from that movie back for "Legal Eagles" (specifically to try and replicate the magic) but "Legal Eagles" didn't turn out so hot. So I would assume that played into the construction of "GBII."

Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 30th, 2023, 3:03 pm
by azza200
Ghostbusters is very gritty and raw compared to GB2, the overall cinematography in first GB is superior to anything in GB2 where everything is a bit too clean and corporate and safe.
Ray: You know, I just can't believe things have gotten so bad in this city that there's no way back. I mean, sure, it's messy, it's crowded, it's polluted,
That line you don't really get the vibe of NY being like that in the GB 2 while in the first film it captures it perfectly

Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 30th, 2023, 4:27 pm
by mrmichaelt
One could argue 1983/84 NYC was a whole lot different than 1988/89 NYC and the overall zeitgeist of the world and Ivan was cognizant of that. The 'look' of GB2 was meant to contrast what was really going on. In real world NYC at the time, crime was at all time highs, it was damn bleak. Probably what inspired the theme of the Psychomagnotheric plasm. So it really fit that it did end on a feeling of hope and optimism and the New Years setting helped in that regard.

Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 30th, 2023, 8:33 pm
by RichardLess
mrmichaelt wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:27 pm One could argue 1983/84 NYC was a whole lot different than 1988/89 NYC and the overall zeitgeist of the world and Ivan was cognizant of that. The 'look' of GB2 was meant to contrast what was really going on. In real world NYC at the time, crime was at all time highs, it was damn bleak. Probably what inspired the theme of the Psychomagnotheric plasm. So it really fit that it did end on a feeling of hope and optimism and the New Years setting helped in that regard.
That’s the point. The look of GB2 doesn’t fit in with the idea of 1988/89 New York at all. It would be so much better if they had that gritty and grimy feeling of the original. Or maybe not better but more apt.

Which is why it’s so ironic that the guy who lensed the ultimate of the NYC grit movies, Taxi Driver, did Ghostbusters 2 as some bright, corporate, yuppyish feel. Which isn’t to say the cinematography of GB2 is bad because it’s not. It’s damn good. It’s just compared to the tone and aesthetic of what’s been established. GB1 felt raw and real. The second film had none of that edge to it. And I wonder if it would’ve had that how different, if at all, the movie would be.

Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 30th, 2023, 9:21 pm
by mrmichaelt
RichardLess wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:33 pm That’s the point. The look of GB2 doesn’t fit in with the idea of 1988/89 New York at all. It would be so much better if they had that gritty and grimy feeling of the original. Or maybe not better but more apt.

Which is why it’s so ironic that the guy who lensed the ultimate of the NYC grit movies, Taxi Driver, did Ghostbusters 2 as some bright, corporate, yuppyish feel. Which isn’t to say the cinematography of GB2 is bad because it’s not. It’s damn good. It’s just compared to the tone and aesthetic of what’s been established. GB1 felt raw and real. The second film had none of that edge to it. And I wonder if it would’ve had that how different, if at all, the movie would be.
I felt it was appropriate, there was even a line I think relating to how it's all below the surface about to burst. So the look of GB2 is a facade, and you see the chinks like the opening of all the people as Dana heads home with Oscar. But it's really just a factor of all movies at the time looking in what you describe as kind a sanitized and corporate aesthetic. Not just GB2 and Twins, even Total Recall and Gremlins 2 kinda had that feel to it. Or blame it on being the cameras and equipment being used by everyone at the time, it was on the edge of entering the digital age. Not the same stuff they used in 83. No way ILM used the same techniques and tech as Boss did in 83/84. Take your pick. Shrug. I don't think Ivan made a mistake not getting certain people from the GB1 crew, probably would have ended up the same. Not like he didn't back any. He was there with Medjuck, Gross, Kahn off the top of my head.

Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 31st, 2023, 4:44 am
by ghoulishfright
I never really considered GB2 to be a particularly "polished" movie. I mean, compared to GB1, I guess? But not noticeably so in my mind. Maybe it just seems that way because of the film stock they used, combined with lots of dolly and crane shots (the first film only had a few crane shots). But literally the first time you see Ecto-1, it's so dirty it's like a dust-bunny on wheels:

Image

The subway scenes are also very filthy looking, so the film has its share of filth. The courthouse and museum locations, on the other hand, are immaculately clean by their very nature. So the look of the film was never an issue for me. :whatever:

Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 31st, 2023, 6:18 am
by RichardLess
mrmichaelt wrote: January 30th, 2023, 9:21 pm
RichardLess wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:33 pm That’s the point. The look of GB2 doesn’t fit in with the idea of 1988/89 New York at all. It would be so much better if they had that gritty and grimy feeling of the original. Or maybe not better but more apt.

Which is why it’s so ironic that the guy who lensed the ultimate of the NYC grit movies, Taxi Driver, did Ghostbusters 2 as some bright, corporate, yuppyish feel. Which isn’t to say the cinematography of GB2 is bad because it’s not. It’s damn good. It’s just compared to the tone and aesthetic of what’s been established. GB1 felt raw and real. The second film had none of that edge to it. And I wonder if it would’ve had that how different, if at all, the movie would be.
I felt it was appropriate, there was even a line I think relating to how it's all below the surface about to burst. So the look of GB2 is a facade, and you see the chinks like the opening of all the people as Dana heads home with Oscar. But it's really just a factor of all movies at the time looking in what you describe as kind a sanitized and corporate aesthetic. Not just GB2 and Twins, even Total Recall and Gremlins 2 kinda had that feel to it. Or blame it on being the cameras and equipment being used by everyone at the time, it was on the edge of entering the digital age. Not the same stuff they used in 83. No way ILM used the same techniques and tech as Boss did in 83/84. Take your pick. Shrug. I don't think Ivan made a mistake not getting certain people from the GB1 crew, probably would have ended up the same. Not like he didn't back any. He was there with Medjuck, Gross, Kahn off the top of my head.
Yeah ok. I guess you could say the look of it was a veneer of sorts. I can dig that. But…I’d like that idea if it played out visually, for example we start out with that facade. We see the literal cracks in the first shot. But the movie just keeps on chugging along with the same aesthetic. If that veneer totally gave way at some point, that might be something. But I get what your saying. I’m not sure it was an intentional thing since Chapman used this exact same style from Scrooged on to Kindergarten Cop & we know the filmmakers wanted to make the film more kid friendly. But it’s an interesting thought.


ILM used the same process more or less as BOSS except BOSS shot on 70mm film stock and ILM used Vistavision. But they were both optical print movies. Models, matte paintings and rotoscoping. There was some advances made in animatronics with the Waldo but everything was done photochemically using the same process as 1984. Just different artists, which is everything.


There are plenty of movies that retain the look I’m talking about. What’s interesting is there is a film that would be released the very next year that would have a very similar gritty New York feel and it was a movie aimed at kids. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Or let’s go with Scorsese again and Goodfellas. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles feels more like the first Ghostbusters, visually, than GB2

Every cinematographer has their own style, has their own preferences. Film stock, lighting rigs, gaffers, operators. Colour timing. All of it plays a roll. The film stock used on GB1 was known as a “fast” stock. And fast film stock tends to give you more grain.

Again we just need to look at Indiana Jones for example. And it’s a great example because here we have two movies released the exact same year. Last Crusade retains that same aesthetic established in the earlier movies. It creates a cohesive trilogy that feels of a part.

All the the people responsible for the visuals were different in this movie from the first(besides a concept artist or two). And we know they wanted a more sanitized movie. There’s no smoking & very little swearing. All of that adds something & all of that was a deliberate choice to dial things down a notch. Think of how much the chain smoking adds to the atmosphere of that first movie. Does it make it a better movie? I don’t know. It adds *something*. Character? And when it’s not there we notice. I guess all those choices are like dominos.

Would GB2 end up being a better movie with the same crew? I don’t know. But it would be different. Maybe it would be a worse movie, who knows?

But I think the message of this movie with the look and feel of the first would be far more appropriate. And again, it would add a cohesion to the franchise. A visually continuity like the other franchises mentioned.

The first Ghostbusters movie has this feel of…everything is being held together by duct tape. It’s a much less polished movie than GB2. If the movies were people GB1 would be, I dunno, Bruce Springsteen and GB2 would be…Donald Trump lol.

Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 31st, 2023, 6:36 am
by RichardLess
ghoulishfright wrote: January 31st, 2023, 4:44 am I never really considered GB2 to be a particularly "polished" movie. I mean, compared to GB1, I guess? But not noticeably so in my mind. Maybe it just seems that way because of the film stock they used, combined with lots of dolly and crane shots (the first film only had a few crane shots). But literally the first time you see Ecto-1, it's so dirty it's like a dust-bunny on wheels:

Image

The subway scenes are also very filthy looking, so the film has its share of filth. The courthouse and museum locations, on the other hand, are immaculately clean by their very nature. So the look of the film was never an issue for me. :whatever:
It’s a much more polished movie in my opinion. Even from an FX stand point. GB1 is matte line city and GB2 has them way more under control. Even the music from the score to the needle drops. And yes film stock plays a huge part in it. Film stock, lighting rigs. All of that.

And yes the first time we see the Ecto 1 it looks like shit. But that’s a story point too, right? They’ve been out of business, aren’t taking care of it. As soon as we see it again, it’s a polished mirror of garish proportions.

And how are the subway scenes filthy looking? That’s actually an issue I have with that scene. It’s suppose to be abandoned and yet…it’s not filthy at all. Once they enter the platform with the slime things get steamy a bit. There’s no atmospheric effects at all in that subway before they get to the slime . Some steam would’ve been nice, trash, spider webs.

Again, it’s a whole aesthetic thing. Less smoking, less swearing, less film grain, the score is much less gothic and epic, the ghosts a little more cartoony. Look at Slimer. And again, I love GB2. I love the Scoleri Bros. But like I mentioned in my original post, I do wonder what affect this aesthetic change had on the franchise. And maybe most people don’t even notice all these thing consciously. But it’s there.

Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 31st, 2023, 10:10 am
by azza200
Another example is Home Alone 2 is more gritty and raw when we see the streets of New York the homeless people around central park and the abandoned house in the final act. Captures the early 90's grittiness of NY which in comparison the first Home Alone is clean polished corporate looking which is the opposite of the sequel

Re: On GB2 Did Ivan Reitman Make a Mistake Not Bringing Back Key GB1 BTS Crew?

Posted: January 31st, 2023, 4:38 pm
by RichardLess
azza200 wrote: January 31st, 2023, 10:10 am Another example is Home Alone 2 is more gritty and raw when we see the streets of New York the homeless people around central park and the abandoned house in the final act. Captures the early 90's grittiness of NY which in comparison the first Home Alone is clean polished corporate looking which is the opposite of the sequel
Get out of my head. I was going to use Home Alone 2 and that sequences as an example!

I just want to also say, and maybe I didn’t say this well enough in my original post, but “polished corporate” look doesn’t automatically=BAD. It’s just different is all. Plenty of movies that have beautiful wonderful cinematography have a polished, Hollywood look to it. Sometimes it can be bad and not appropriate but I just wanted to clarify that I don’t think the cinematography of GB2 is bad at all. It’s not. Infact it’s really good taken out of context. But just when you look at the first movie and the established look of it.