Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canon-Strike VIII: Ghostbusters

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Canon-Strike VIII: Ghostbusters

    We're approaching the first new canonical addition to the original storyline in over thirty years and so now seems a good point at which to look back at the Ghostbusters storyline and on where it may go from here. The supernatural action comedy may seem on the surface like a simple 80's box office movie but there are some threads that could be pulled due to the investment Aykroyd has made into the franchise over the decades and the various aborted attempts to breathe new life into the property, all of which leads us to the upcoming new movie.

    The film opens with the infamous library ghost that sets the scene for the creation of the Ghostbusters themselves and the increasing emergence of the dead within New York. Whilst Aykroyd has often dabbled with the idea of multiple HQs around the world dealing with paranormal threats the canon of the movies establishes a much more limited and nuanced set up which is largely consistent throughout the films. The first real suggestion of this deeper narrative comes from later in the first film when during the scene where the team are locked up in prison they go over the pattern of hauntings that Manhattan has been subject to for the last few months.



    Rather than a natural emergence of hauntings, the spirits are being channelled up from the building Dana lives in which was designed by Ivo Shandor, also a lead member of the cult of Gozor who intended for it to funnel the dead up to end the world.

    Ivo Shandor
    And here lies the key to the franchise. Shandor's plan is thwarted by the Ghostbusters on the rooftop by crossing their streams to defeat Gozer. This doesn't just stop the threat but it stops nearly all paranormal activity within New York for five years. This almost forces the Ghostbusters out of business until the spirits return coinciding with the painting of Vigo the Carpathian arriving at the city museum. Following the possession of the pram of Dana's baby in the city streets the team goes underground to discover a river of slime running beneath the city through an abandoned pneumatic rail tunnel.



    This tunnel exists in real life with the film suggesting work on it reached a further point than it did. The canonical videogame further elaborates on Shandors history in the early 1900's and his use of Gozor followers to seed them within powerful positions in New York. Included in this is the head of the Natural History Museum, The New York Public City Library and the Sedgewick Hotel which contained Mandalas aimed to aid Gozer's return with key allies overseeing each. It's considered that Shandor and the cult used this influence in the city to repurpose the pneumatic rail tunnel as a method to funnel pink slime through the city so it could affect the citizens mood helping their overall purpose of driving paranormal spirits up.

    The New York Pneumatic Railroad (also known as NYPR and New York Pneumatic Railway)[1] is the name given to the abandoned subway line running beneath New York City, found by the Ghostbusters after uncovering one of its air-shafts on First Avenue. The Pneumatic Transit system was constructed in New York City in 1870 and then abandoned for unspecified reasons. One station in the system was named Van Horne[2] was built beneath First Avenue, and was made to be accessed via an air shaft from the surf




    Now, there are a lot of areas where people try to join the dots but whilst the second film leans the least on Ivo Shandor as a driving mythological force his fingerprints are there and this video seems to do a good job of mapping where the river of slime would flow and how that maps onto the real world locations of in film Ghostbusters ghost events.



    This continues into the videogame which is set in 1991 and as things stand remains the third piece of existing canon. The Gozer exhibit arrives in Manhattan and due to being kept in the History Museum at the epicentre of Shandors Mandala's and reignites the ghost attacks. They face off with the Librarian Ghost again learning that she died after refusing to relinquish the Gozerian Codex and this leads the team to face the Collector and to learn about the spiritual network running through the city and out into the Hudson River where the submerged Shandor Island lies. The villain of the game is Shandor's spirit itself who is angered by Gozer's failure to return and seeks to become a God himself.



    The films treat the mythology as a very light reference aspect of the storylines but in reality everything hangs off one core plot which appears to be continuing with the upcoming movie. From the trailer for Afterlife we see further evidence of Shandor being the core behind all franchise events as Egon's family has been raised nearby to the Shandor Mines


    The mines are expected to be tied to the mining of the materials used in the Manhattan projects Shandor influenced and looks to be a haunted site itself, the mine is listed as opening in 1922 which is seven years before the construction of the Shandor Building. Rudd also states that there hasn't been a ghost sighting in thirty years which almost exactly times back to the timing of the videogame in 1991 and continues to establish that the Ghostbusters can only operate when something relating to Shandor rises.


    Whilst some have speculated about the idea of Gozer returning and how that may be too much of a callback to the original film it seems as though continuing that narrative would be the most natural as the canon has never been particularly about anything other than Shandor and Gozer. The events of The Real Ghostbusters and the 2016 movie aren't part of the mainline canon so it creates a very specific through line for the new film even if it limits the idea that the world could have lots of other HQs as Aykroyd has always been keen on.

    Is this mythology rich enough to continue making films on?
    Would it be better if ghosts were just natural events?

    #2
    It'll be very interesting to see if Afterlife contains any references to the games plot as that game served as an outlet for the absence of a third film. With the original films now getting a new sequel it would be strange to keep such a significant part of the GB history bound by a game that only a slither of the audience has experienced. Instead it would seem better to cut the game loose and repurpose some of the narrative elements into the new film.

    Comment


      #3
      I'd be surprised if there was even a nod to anything that is outside of the first two films and I'd even suspect references to the second film won't be all that plentiful.

      Comment


        #4


        Hasbro are to release a £100 replica of Egon's Proton blaster based on its appearance in Ghostbusters: Afterlife that contains lights and sound effects. Interestingly it also reflects the upgrades the player gets over the course of the videogame which suggests the game will remain canon.

        Comment


          #5
          We've revisited each of the Canon-Strikes either to coincide with a new film or as a film by film breakdown and this brings us round to this entry again now that the newest film has been released and the franchise appears to be lined up to continue in its original continuity. Heading into the new year we'll finally be moving on to new properties in future threads but before we do we'll close out the year with this final revisit.


          Movie 01 - Ghostbusters
          Three scientists with an interest in whether the existence of the paranormal can be confirmed find their theories are correct when they follow up on reports of a spectre in a library. The number of sightings continues to rise and they find themselves becoming the team responsible, along with new recruit Winston, for capturing the ghosts that it later transpires are emerging due to a planned attempt to early summon the demon god Gozer. The film sets up the world, characters, internal logic and imagery that was appealing enough that the studio was able to merchandise it for nearly four decades despite little content being released.




          What did and didn't work about the original film and was its concept only suited to a one and done effort, or a solid basis for multiple films?

          Comment


            #6
            Plot wise the first post covers more than enough about the canon, my main things would be that I've always felt (and feel thatr Afterlife confirms) that people have held far too closely to the 'comedy' monikor that the film has from it's origins in the 80's where genres were more clearly defined. Really the film was comedic but never a strict comedy, it was one of the first pioneers of the action adventure types of films that have been common ever since so tonally it was always workable as a franchise and the subject matter has remained pretty unique throughout the years.

            The main nod I'd agree with that comes up only sometimes, is the impact of The Real Ghostbusters cartoon that the original film inspired. I do agree that that cartoon had a heavy hand in securing a generations love of the franchise and whilst all its elements come from the film it was what really proved to the audience that the franchise does have the mileage in the tank to be a running property.

            Comment


              #7
              The better the Ghostbusters content, the less lore.

              GB1: Hardly any lore
              GB2: More lore
              The Real Ghostbusters: Lots of lore

              The stuff to do with Ivo Shandor and Gozer is irrelevant to what makes Ghostbusters such a great film. It's all in the irreverent script and the terrific chemistry between the leads, set against a fun and goofy occult science backdrop. What little lore there is exists entirely in service of those core elements, which is exactly as it should be.

              Even as a kid I thought the Real Ghostbusters was boring, simply because it failed to capture any of what was actually good about the original film - that acerbic, anarchic vibe that has made it so enduring. Take away that stuff and leave the lore, and you're left with nothing. But take away the lore and leave the dialogue, characters and atmosphere, and you can imagine it working with all kinds of settings and stories.

              I love Ghostbusters, but for me it's just a great film. Not a universe. As soon as you start emphasising that you're missing the point of why the film is good.

              EDIT: And I just want to add to this, this is not me bagging on Neon Ignition for his excellent OP above!

              Awesome work as usual and I enjoyed reading it
              Last edited by wakka; 20-12-2021, 12:54.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by wakka View Post
                I love Ghostbusters, but for me it's just a great film. Not a universe.
                Yep, I agree with this with the caveat that I haven't seen the new film so I don't know if that would influence my thoughts on this. I have so far liked pretty much all the Ghostbusters incarnations but that first film is a special thing of its own. And it didn't need a sequel (although I enjoyed it). Didn't need a cartoon (although I enjoyed it). Didn't need a remake (although I enjoyed it). It is a nice neat unit all on its own. A complete experience.

                Comment


                  #9
                  The fascination with GB lore I think lies in that it even exists, it's definitely all down to Aykrod's own obsession levels. Afterlife is good at wrapping up the franchise fixation on the Shandor elements though the way things are it'll presumably have to expand on things like cults, phenomenon etc in future because the franchise in any live action form has always dodged the notion of things existing outside of that framework

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Yeah, I mean, I'm completely ill equipped to be spouting off. Have I seen GB 2016? Nope. Afterlife? Nope. Last saw the cartoon in the 90s, as well.

                    Maybe I'd absolutely love them. Really, I should watch them, and then come back.

                    But just to explain why I haven't seen them despite loving the OG film, to be honest I haven't felt much of a draw because all the gubbins around GB - the proton packs and so forth - aren't what actually speaks to me about the first film (although don't get me wrong, they are cool). I actually only watched GB2 for the first time a year or two ago and was pleasantly surprised as it's fairly decent, although it's typical of sequels developed to capitalise quickly on a successful film (i.e. it's pretty much a retread).

                    It's maybe partly because when I have gotten excited about the idea of expansions to a film I love in the past, I'm usually burned. Indiana Jones 4 was a classic example. Nothing needs to be said on that. John Wick is another classic example. My god, the lore in that third film. That desert scene. What a snore. And yet the first film is genius.

                    The Ghostbusters is, I guess, an OK canvas to tell new stories. Just speaking for myself it's not something that I feel I'm especially enthused about though, more indifferent.

                    EDIT: And just to add, to answer a question in a previous post, what did/didn't work about GB? For me very little doesn't work. It rocks. It's funny, it's feelgood, the pacing is great, the aesthetic is awesome. It's just excellent.

                    No job is too big, no fee is too big.
                    Last edited by wakka; 20-12-2021, 13:37.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Movie 02 - Ghostbusters II
                      The sequel is largely seen as the closest attempt to offer a threat away from reference to Gozer even if the underlying lore ties into that threat again. In terms of the rolling main plot however this is the sole reference to another follower of unholy ways with Vigo growing in power due to the purple slime tunnels beneath New York. The beats of the film took away from its impact because it meant that the film very closely followed the structure of the first film and was infamously why Murray fought against returning again in future without as satisfactory plot.




                      Much has been said about how similar the film is to the first but what worked about this second outing?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I must admit I’m not quite getting the importance of any lore here. As Wakka said, I don’t think many loved Ghostbusters for its lore. And I also think it’s a trap - like Star Wars films desperately needing to connect to the Skywalkers. The Gozer thing just happened to be the plot of the first movie. I don’t think it was ever designed to prop up some epic across generations.

                        Anyway, the second film is fun. It’s more child-friendly and it’s pretty basic. One thing that seems apparent to me watching it as an adult is that the chemistry between the actors doesn’t seem to be quite there for whatever reason. It’s like they aren’t quite having as much fun with it. Nevertheless I enjoy it and I think Janosz Poha is one of the funniest characters ever put to film.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          It's due largely due to the subsequent years where tie in things, the scripts Aykroyd worked on, the game etc have all continued to build around Gozer as the central pillar. Largely it's always been held back because no actual films were being produced. However Afterlife very much continues that arc as well and it's clear that the plan moving forward is to build out what lore there is to expand the franchise beyond Gozer but even after Afterlife it's still the foundation of what comes next. It's kind of an inverse of pre-planned canon because whilst GB1 and GB2 didn't really lean on it, being 80's films, that world expansion is now core to pretty much every big franchise now even if really the Exec reasoning is that it also means they get to play with 'memberberries.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Janosz Poha is a brilliant inclusion and one of the best things about GB2. Murray also gets plenty of good lines in it, and in general it still has a funny and sharp script. But it's ultimately a very straightforward retread and I don't think it has tremendous value as a standalone film. It's basically an optional DLC expansion pack for fans of the first film.

                            I would say that the film's biggest problem is that it lacks the energy of the first one. There is a sense of going through the motions.

                            Comment


                              #15

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X