Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
#4941875
It’s amazing how “different” Ghostbusters 2 feels from the first film. From the music, to the production design, effects and, the focus of today’s post, cinematography.

Ghostbusters 1 feels kinda dirty & messy. Lived in. A real New York of the 1970s feeling. I attribute that to Laszlo Kovac’s aesthetic. The film is very grainy, but also features some terrific shot compositions. Lots of wide master shots are used with minimal inserts. When the Ghostbusters face off against Gozer it feels almost like a western. Compare the GB’s “grab your stick” moment to the “let’s cook” moment in GB2. Similar story beats but played very differently in shot compositions. The music does a lot more heavy lifting in the GB2 “let’s cook”. You don’t get that epic grandeur of the face off with Gozer.

It’s actually quite striking how many beautiful shot compositions are in GB1. Think of the static shot of the New York skyline as the containment unit beams spread out as the beginnings of “Magic” play. The beautiful pull in POV shot of Vinz The Terror Dog approaching Louis has he tries to find a milk bone. The shot of Dana’s apartment exploding all around her. The “climbing the stairs” shot. The epic wide shot of the proton pack beams hitting Mr. Stay Puft where we can barely make out the Gb’s. The Slimer Ball Room sequence also has some truly great compositions where again, you get that western Sergio Leone feel.

Ghostbusters 2 on the other hand feels more sterile & safe. Very much a more corporate product. Which isn’t to say DP Michael Chapman doesn’t bring the goods, quite the contrary. But the difference between the two films “look” is striking. Gone is the intense grain and New York City of the 1980s feel. This really leads people into “Ghostbusters 2 is more kid friendly” territory since the film, on an aesthetic level, feels extremely different. We still get some great compositions, but the difference in how the frame tells the story is evidence to me that Ivan Reitman really leaves to it his cameramen to frame his shots or is at least more collaborative than other directors. Reitman isn’t exactly known for his framing or style, unlike say, Steven Spielberg, David Fincher, Michael Bay.

One thing in GB2’s cinematography I love is the colour. Watching these two films on 4K UHD is like night & day. Ghostbusters 2 pops. The colour are fantastic. The reds & blacks are deep. But I don’t feel like they went for that gunslinger/western vibe that GB1 had(with the exception of the “Suck in the guts guys” moment). One thing you’ll notice is that the camera isn’t as locked off in GB2, it moves more, which is was no doubt a VFX limitation in GB1.

So on the whole, I prefer Kovac’s dirty, grimy western feel. It’s interesting that the Ghostbusters 2 story actually suits Ghostbusters 1 style more. Think about it. Mood slime, New York being a source of chaos & evil. GB2 doesn’t have that vibe. What’s ironic is that Ghostbusters has that Taxi Driver feel of a gritty 1970s New York film when A) it was mostly shot in LA & B) Ghostbusters 2 cinematographer Michael Chapman was the DP on Taxi Driver. Weird huh?

So which cinematography do you prefer? Ghostbusters 1 or 2?
#4941887
Suppose they both had their plus points and minus points. GB2 is a movie with a bigger budget (by around 10-15 million supposedly, which was a lot more back then than it is now) and it shows. I think the style of the first movie suited it. Second movie was a bit more "polished" looking if that makes sense?

    Someone on FB found it. NARDA ELECTROMAGNETIC RADI[…]

    It appears that some time today someone who […]

    Correct, it grants several in fact the Melody's […]

    Are they just newspaper clippings or something? […]