The 1980’s were a great time for comedy movies. With the advancements in CGI, directors were able to produce things that were never even thought possible before and were able to stun and amaze their audiences. Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and Ghostbuster’s were both comedies made during the 1980’s and although they might share the same genre, they are actually incredible different, and vary incredibly in how they get their points across, and who they are actually attempting to address. For example Ghostbuster’s used CGI heavily throughout the film, using new technologies almost as much as possible to create a unique movie that stood out, as noted in the review done by Roger Ebert. Even the trailer for Ghostbuster’s was filled with CGI to show audiences the spectacle that they were going to be watching. I feel like this was a movie that was not only trying to be funny, but it was also hoping to be cutting edge using new technologies.
In Comparison, despite being made two years later in a field where technical development was rapidly advancing, the directors and producers of Ferris Bueller chose to use little to no CGI, relying on traditional methods to get it’s comedy across and to create effects for the audience. For the film they built the prop cars that the kids were seen riding around on, built stunt cars for the scenes were the car was getting joyrided, and even built a fake shell car for one of the movies most dramatic scenes, when Cameron completely wrecks his dad’s precious Ferrari. 
While both of these films are in the comedy genre they took dramatically different paths as to what the characters will be doing while introducing the comedy, with Ferris Bueller focusing on teenage angst it attempted to connect to a smaller audience and introduced the possibility of alienating some viewers who might not have wanted to go into a comedy and then have to deal with such a topic, Ghostbuster’s was never trying to reach out to a specific age group and to attempt to relate with them, Ghostbuster’s was simply a fun adventure meaning to entertain as many people as possible, and to leave them feeling happy, introducing such characters as the CGI generated Stay Puft Man, which the Ghostbuster’s must fight in order to save New York City from its utter destruction. 
I believe that this difference in tone, and the difference in approach to comedy, was why the films received vastly different critical review when they initially came out. In the review done by Roger Ebert, he highly praises the Ghostbuster’s film, and seemed to enjoy not only the comedy, and the special effects that came with it, he even goes so far as to call some of the special effects “Mind Boggling”. However when it comes to Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Roger Ebert and other reviewers had a dramatically different view of the film. In the review of Ferris Bueller’s Day off, Roger Ebert notes in his review that in the movie the adult characters are almost always “dim witted and one-dimensional” while this is true, it seems he misses the main point, to teenagers who feel as if they have the world figured out, its very common through their eyes to see adults as those who might not have the intelligence they actually possess. Ferris Bueller as Roger notes “is a bit of a preacher”, if this kid firmly believes he knows enough about life to preach about it, why would he see these adults as anything but dim when they attempt to stop him? Ferris Bueller’s Day Off was aimed more at a coming to age audience then it was aimed at a full audience. Despite some of the negativity towards Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, some reviewers were able to see a deeper meaning to the movie. For example in a more recent review done by Steve Almond he takes particular note in the friendship between Ferris and Cameron. He notes that instead of instead of portraying a normal relationship between the two, he “renders the pair as a psychological dyad” in the review almond also raves about the film in general calling it “without a doubt the most sophisticated teen movie i’ve ever seen”. Despite the many differences throughout the films, both have remained hailed as some of the greatest comedies made, and continue to be watched today, I believe this shows that despite the differences, people will always want to watch a good movie that will make them laugh.
Hi Tristan, I liked how you compared and contrasted the two films at the very beginning, and how you linked the source. Next time, I would maybe add more history to it rather than just focusing on the comparisons of the films. I did enjoy your post, but there is always room for improvement. I’ve been trying to work on the same thing. Instead of just writing about the films, I try to add some history from the real life. In addition, I honestly did not know that Ghost Busters was meant to be a comedy, so that was interesting to learn. This may be due to the fact that I was a child when viewing it, and I knew it wasn’t meant to be serious but I also would not have, necessarily, called it a comedy.
Hello Tristan,
I enjoyed how you talked about the early development of CGI and how it was implemented into 80’s comedy. At the time, Ghostbusters was seen to be an extreme advance in early special effects, which it undoubtedly was. With the giant marshmallow man that was just as tall as some of the biggest skyscrapers, Ghostbusters was somehow able to make someones worst nightmare into a comedic adventure to put a stop to these undead beings. I also enjoyed how you brought up the fact that even though CGI advancements were increasingly growing in popularity, the production of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off used little to no CGI. I enjoy this simply because it shows that even though technology is advancing, filmmakers do not need special effects in order to make a film effective.
Hello Tristan,
Both of these movies are classics are classics that I think everyone needs to enjoy. I had no clue that the car they were using was not actually a Ferrari but just a fake shell of one. That probably is for the best because when Cameron sends his dads car through the window down the hill that would have been a waste of a very nice car. The ghost busters is a movie that wants to make everyone smile, not just a specific group but anyone they could which is how more comedies should be treated like. They did a great job with the special effects such as the Puft man.
Hey, all in all you have a really solid post here. I have seen both these but it hasn’t been for a while. Your post does a good job at informing the reader about what happens in the movies and how they were created. It was neat to read about all the special effects that were used and how it seemed ahead of its time. With two movies that seem complete different you do a really good job finding comparison. I Thought that quote about adult actors being dim witted and one dimensional was pretty funny but after thinking about it, it did start to make sense. good post!
Hi Tritstan,
I liked that you write about the genre and not just about the films themselves. I would like to start doing this in my future posts, I tend to talk too much about the film and not the why it was filmed etc. I think Ghostbusters was a sold mainstream blockbuster comedy whereas Ferris Beuler’s Day off was a lower budget film that probably didn’t expect to do as well as it did. I love that you point out how the adults are portrayed in the movie. This movie was about Ferris and his cleverness of outsmarting adults, so he can have a day off so totally makes sense the adults are lame.