Sign in to follow this  
GustavoLeao

GHOSTBUSTERS Bombs, Are you Surprised ?

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, prometheus59650 said:

I'm fine with him believing in the paranormal. It's less crazy than thinking GB is worthy of some expanded universe.

^
This...LOL

And yes, I don't think of Akroyd as 'crazy' or 'eccentric' because he believes in the paranormal or supernatural.  What about people who believe in religion? They're not crazy either.   Belief may be indefensible, but I respect it all the same.   I believe in gravity but I can't physically prove it by demonstrating its exact method of transmission (waves? Particles? Who knows...).  I know it exists only because my feet and objects tend to fall downward.  But I can't demonstrate by what means they fall; I simply know that they do. 

That said, I only get miffed when beliefs in the paranormal are lumped into science's bucket.  They're not science; they're pseudoscience at best.  One is always free to believe in these things of course, but one shouldn't put a misleading label on it, that's all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

^
This...LOL

And yes, I don't think of Akroyd as 'crazy' or 'eccentric' because he believes in the paranormal or supernatural.  What about people who believe in religion? They're not crazy either.   Belief may be indefensible, but I respect it all the same.   I believe in gravity but I can't physically prove it by demonstrating its exact method of transmission (waves? Particles? Who knows...).  I know it exists only because my feet and objects tend to fall downward.  But I can't demonstrate by what means they fall; I simply know that they do. 

That said, I only get miffed when beliefs in the paranormal are lumped into science's bucket.  They're not science; they're pseudoscience at best.  One is always free to believe in these things of course, but one shouldn't put a misleading label on it, that's all...

Yeah. Most of the paranormal hunters play around the fringes of science to give themselves and their quackery credibility. Remember reading in Skeptic once about how one of their teams followed some ghost hunters to check their methodology, etc. and, at one point, the paranormalists were all 'ooo'o-ing and 'ahhhh'ing over this heat trace that found on the wall and what proof it was, and the team from Skeptic just, "Your cameraman was leaning against that wall 10 minutes ago and that's a residual signature."

"Oh, no, no, no. Our people are careful. We're meticulous. Nothing like that ever happens."

(Plays tape)

".....Oh."

And I say this not dismissing the potential for the paranormal. No one can say definitively that something of you DOESN'T survive in, say, some quantum state, after death. Unlikely, but who knows? But these people aren't scientists. They are enthusiastic hobbyists.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, prometheus59650 said:

Yeah. Most of the paranormal hunters play around the fringes of science to give themselves and their quackery credibility. Remember reading in Skeptic once about how one of their teams followed some ghost hunters to check their methodology, etc. and, at one point, the paranormalists were all 'ooo'o-ing and 'ahhhh'ing over this heat trace that found on the wall and what proof it was, and the team from Skeptic just, "Your cameraman was leaning against that wall 10 minutes ago and that's a residual signature."

"Oh, no, no, no. Our people are careful. We're meticulous. Nothing like that ever happens."

(Plays tape)

".....Oh."

And I say this not dismissing the potential for the paranormal. No one can say definitively that something of you DOESN'T survive in, say, some quantum state, after death. Unlikely, but who knows? But these people aren't scientists. They are enthusiastic hobbyists.

 Those ghost hunter shows are largely nonsense.  They're just plumbers with tape recorders and night-vision goggles.  I was once at a friend's house, and she was watching it like it was a documentary.  She was insitant that it 'proved' ghosts.  I pointed out the giant gaping flaws in their so-called 'scientific' methods.  I even told her about some of the obvious editing tricks and other gags they were using.  Watching the rest, she looked at me as if I killed Santa Claus. She says I ruined that show for her. :giggle:

Happy to oblige,.... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

She says I ruined that show for her. :giggle:

Happy to oblige,.... :P

I, too am happy to poke holes in that pseudo-scientific crap.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to franchising Ghostbusters - I think it does have potential for more stories. The popularity of the cartoons kind of proved that. I've seen worse ideas given a franchise. The problem is - can it be franchised without Murray, Ramis, Akroyd, and Hudson? If the answer is no - then Akroyd needs to accept it's gone now. He at least got to be part of a cult classic. That is more than most of us can say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Founder said:

can it be franchised without Murray, Ramis, Akroyd, and Hudson? If the answer is no

This seems to be the answer. I think Ghostbusters was just this perfect storm of cast and audience that led it to 'classic' status.

I don't think you're catching that lightening ever again. 

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this