I never really got the beef people had with the second film. I have absolutely no problem with it.
I have went into detail before on why I vastly prefer the original, and why the second is a pale remake. I don't want to go into all the details again, if I recall what thread i posted my anaysis in i will re-post it.
But, basically, the original film is set in the real world, whereas the second's world feels fake. I think people who like the sequel carry their love for the original movie into the second one.
It's like going on the rebound into another relationship, when you are still in love with the person you just broke up with.
You can kid yourself on that you love the next guy, but really you are lying to yourself and transferring the feelings you have for the first person you love onto another person.
You might call me a horrible ******* for trying to tell you why you think you love this movie, but I call 'em as I see 'em.
There is no way I will ever buy GBII on dvd for this reason.
edit:
Ok, I found the thread I was discussing GBII in, it begins with me comparing the Marshmallow Man to the Statue of Liberty set piece...
I just think the Marshmallow man is the more inspired idea, so many people in the world must have looked at the SoL and thought, 'what if that just started walking around?'', but not many folk would have taken a look at that MMM image, and thought about him doing a King Kong on the city. And, y'know, I just thought it worked better onscreen , after all the ghosts and crazy stuff we have already seen in the movie, it really needed something different for the ending to have impact, and they did it, they came up with such an out of field idea that the audience were simultaniously wtf, and delighted.
Secret Fawful said:
I see where you're coming from, but I don't see a reason to complain in your reasons.
Well, I just feel that it makes the ghosts less fantastical if they are put into a cartoon context, there is not as much awe at their presence, for me anyway, but i think that is definitely a fact in terms of the movie's aesthetic, whether or not that bothers you is another thing, it depends on what you get out of the movies. For me, GB1 was always about getting to look in on a 'What If?' situation for our world, what would happen if ghosts just started popping up all over the place, and we get to see some realistic reactions, the media reports, the environmental protection agency, the celebrity status of the scientists who devise a way to combat the ghosts, the politicians and religious leaders arguing over the phenomenon...
Whereas I can't get that kind of thrill from the second movie, as the context feels unreal.
But, if you are not really watching the movie on that 'documentary' level, like I have always done, and are just into the comedic aspects, the action etc, I guess you could enjoy both movies on a par(although I do think the 1st does not compare to the second in terms of humour, Murray was never better than in the 1st GB's movie, although GroundhogDay was also an outstanding comedic performance, and I think the 'real life' situations in GB1 lend themselves better to comedy, as they open up more scope for the writing as a result, and we can relate to them better).
edit:
and I will say one more thing, it is very easy to bring in real world aspects to a film, even if you don't have those components in your first draft, that is something you can add in later as you will need it for the reality of your movie.
But, humour is harder to grasp and write, that can't be learned and picked up, you have either got it or you haven't, and if you have a po-faced smugness in there, as opposed to genuine heartfelt humour, you are not going to feel much of anything during the course of the film.