I didn't even know that there seems to be a general dislike for Ghostbusters 2 untill the media buzz for the new reboot started. Then I noticed in a lot of comments, and sometimes in articles and news too that there the 1989 sequel seems to get a lot of bad press. It really surprised me, because I din't remember it being bad at all. But I though "hey, maybe I was just a dumb kid, maybe it really doesn't hold up?" So I rewatched both movies recently and... I still don't get it. It may not be quite as good as the first, but there is no huge drop in quality here, and definately nothing to warrant outright hostility. In fact, as sequels go, it's really one of the better ones. The cast is all there, the visuals are good, it's still funny, what's the problem? The only real difference I've noticed is that the second movie leans a bit more towards the horror side of things. It's not outright scary, but there is a lot of really creepy/messed up stuff (likr the heads on pikes in the subway), and some of the jokes are quite dark (like the Titanic scene, which I really liked by the way). So is that it?

dunno
i always liked it

the only thing i always disliked was that in the first 30 minutes the ghostbsuters were exposed as "frauds" after the first movie and had to prove themselves all over again
would have been just easier to say that the ghost activity dried up after gozer and with it their business

but i think its a solid sequel

BECAUSE IT SUCKED! :D

The Statue Of Liberty walking around NYC? Give me a fucking break!

Because sadly many people lack imagination..... probably the same people who dislike Transformers movies.

That does not mean there are not some science fiction movies that don't deserve being disliked, such as Superman3!

Yeah, so unrealistic and goofy. Now the marshmallow man- that was some hard science.

I don't see any issues with Ghostbusters 2. I mean certainly there's things that don't feel like they belong. The whole way the trial went with the bookkeeper being a lawyer, him and the secretary effectively having sex while watching the baby. More thrown in jokes. Negative vs Positive slime. Cringe worthy moments.

As for why it's hated... I don't know. Parts of it feel rushed, but drop what I've mentioned and it's still a decent movie; Albeit not a horror film like the first one.

Oh come on. His "once I turned into a dog and they helped me" speech was one of the funniest scenes in the movie :D

Every time I mention how stupid the Statue of Liberty scene was, some wise guy has to pull the Marshmallow Man out of his ass. :P

At least the Marshmallow Man had, you know, LEGS!!! XD
There was the Statue of Liberty walking around like she had legs, but she doesn't! All that is, is a copper shell. There aren't legs behind that gown, just rivets and steel. It would have actually been less offensive if they had her levitate around the city; at least that wouldn't have involved non existent appendages.

People think the first movie was a horror flick?

You're seriously the last person I would expect to be the joyless ass who nitpicks at realism in Ghostbusters :D Newsflash, Star Wars fan- there's no sound in space! :P

I'm not being joyless, I'm laughing my ass off right now.

Look, I think it sucked. XD I'm sorry friend, we can't agree on everything.

Of course not, and I don't have a problem with that. I'm just really surprised that you of all people would nitpick at such stuff :D

Ok, is not liking Sigourney Weaver even legal? I mean seriously, have you seen A Year of Living Dangerously? Because I can't belive anyone could see that and not like her at least a little?

Well actually, what you have is half a statue of liberty with imaginary legs verses and entirely imaginary marshmallow man with imaginary legs. So why is the statue of liberty more ridiculous? its less ridiculous by over half a body!

This is hands down the strangest argument I've ever been part of. :P