All was well and good when a sequel was announced and was released June 1989. We got a new villain in Viggo; Dana Barrett returns; Janoz as the new dweeb gunning for her, a slightly re-vamped version of Slimer (who now seems to have turned traitor on his fellow ghosts), Louis Tulley reprising his role, and all four original ghostbusters....or were they?
Take a look at the pictures above and try to tell me that there isn't something fishy going on. GB II was released in 1989, which means it was filmed in 1988. Assuming the original GB was filmed a year before its release in 1984, that makes a five year gap between the two productions. There's no way that the visage of Ernie Hudson changed that much in such a short amount of time. Sure, the actor playing Winston in GB II looks Ernie Hudson from GB I, but anyone can see there are some subtle, but obvious differences.
What am i getting at? A late-April Fool's joke? No. A conspiracy to replace the real Ernie Hudson with a clone at some point in time after GB I? Maybe.
I wish I could find a bigger picture of Mr. Hudson from GB I than the one above, but it's all I got.
I'm not saying this conspiracy is real. I'm just saying that the guy playing Winston in GB is not the same one in GB II. Why? Who would want or need to create this kind of conspiracy? Who knows. But they should know that there's a few of us out there who are on to them. Oh yes, we can tell. And we'll be watching.
No comments:
Post a Comment