I was reading on the internet that part 2 grossed over 110 million dollars in the box office, in the US alone!!!! How can people call this movie a bomb? For 1989 that is GREAT, for NOW that is still great. And in a year when you had batman and other big blockbusters that is darn good. And the movie was awsome, i think, i just dont get it, why people bad mouth this film

Nobody argues the financial success of the movie, I think they're more concerned with the fact that the movie didn't do anything new really.

As great a movie as it was, it was pretty much cut from the same cloth as the first movie. The story was written so that it would play out exactly like the first - the guys must go from zeros to heroes, Peter must have a romance with Dana, there must be interference from a petty, government official, etc.

Heck, they even went out of their way to have a giant figure walk the streets of New York and Slimer put in an appearance. The only new territory in the movie was the relationship between Louis and Janine.

This made for a blockbuster movie, but it didn't win it any critical acclaim.

24. 1984 Ghostbusters $238,600,000
182. 1989 Ghostbusters 2 $112,494,738

This topic seems to come up alot. In my opinion I think that Ghostbusters II did well at the box office. It gave Columbia their biggest opening weekend. However, Batman came out the following week and was the big hit of that year. At that time I don't think any movie could have gone head to head with Batman. Consider the fact that the average ticket buyer does not see more than one movie a every few months. Now not being a huge Ghosthead what are you going to see, the NEW Batman flick or Ghostbusters II, a sequel?

One of my main problems is that Ghostbusters II was rushed to theaters and it shows in some parts (some of the FX are not that well done). They were even doing reshoots as close as one month before release. I would have pushed the release back to when the Batman craze died down or even later that year. Back to the Future II came out in November that year (and did about the sam business as GB II) so I would have put Ghostbusters II out during the Christmas season. I worked at a movie theater during Christmas break two years ago and it is mad with business.

Doug

You must consider that GB2 went up with some great movies that year…. It could have ended up like UFH….but it didn't, it surrvived…somewhat. But it could have been alot worse.. And I still say that it would have done better if they left some of those deleted scenes in and pushed the release back till August or maybe December and marketed it a little better..

So Batman's the reason GB2 didn't make as much as the first. I always wondered why a sequel to a very popular movie wouldn't attract twice the attention as the first one had. So now I know…

UHF, Jesusfreak.

A typo…no, not the movie…my mispelling of it…the movie was good.

The reason GB2 didn't make more at the theaters (I'm not saying anything about critical acclaim) is because it debuted a week before Batman. If it wasn't for that, I believe it could've grossed well more than it did.

You all said it perfectly. GB2 did do well, just not nearly as well as GB1 (plus it opened one week before Batman, the hit movie of 1989). I think GB2 would've done much better had it been released later that year or in 1990.