#and 3 out of 4 of the original ghostbusters are still alive. and the fact that theyre well enough to keep doing it

[wp100]

watched the most recent ghostbusters movie (frozen empire?)

It was alright. I preferred afterlife, but still really enjoyed this one. lots of character development and good humour

[thenightling]

My few grievances about The Batman vs. Dracula:

The animated film The Batman vs. Dracula is both a guilty pleasure and a disappointment for what might have been.  I sort of like it but at the same time acknowledge it’s a very flawed movie.    Here are a few of the problems I have with The Batman vs. Dracula the animated movie.   Note: I do like this movie.  It’s a guilty pleasure because I know it’s flawed.  Anyway, here we go.

1.   I would have preferred to see Dracula up against Kevin Conroy’s Batman, Batman of the 1990s Batman animated series.  To me this version is the perfect Batman and in my mind (when I was ten-years-old) he was the version of Batman I wanted to meet my other favorite characters like Disney’s Gargoyles, or The Real Ghostbusters.  So of course he’s the version I would have preferred meet Dracula.

2.   I acknowledge The Batman vs. Dracula doesn’t really follow  The Batman vs. Dracula (Red Rain) graphic novel trilogy.  This doesn’t bother me too much.   Truth be told I wish they would make a new Batman vs. Dracula in the main DC comics continuity.  DC almost never uses Dracula.   And honestly, I kind of felt the trilogy was mildly disappointing.  

3.   Dracula is one of the few public domain characters that I can’t help but say Marvel got better (except the stupid “Dark Elf” look where he had that high white pony tail and red armor from 2010 until 2018.   That was annoying.)   But no one can deny that Tomb of Dracula (which gave us Blade: The Vampire Hunter) is now a classic.

Come to think of it, I prefer Marvel’s Adam (The Frankenstein Monster) to DC’s Frankenstein monster too.   At least when Marvel remembers Adam (The Frankenstein Monster) is intelligent and articulate.  Sometimes he gets writers who are stuck on “Fiiire Baaaaad!” and clearly aren’t familiar with the Mary Shelley novel... (Someone hire Steve Niles, quick!)

 4.   On to the story itself.    This scene. This scene right here!   Bruce Wayne / Batman The Great Detective... He should not have had to write “Alucard” on a silver platter in lipstick and hold it up to a mirror to realize it’s Dracula spelt backward. I get that The Batman is the more kid friendly incarnation of the animated Batman but why not a scene of him telling someone like Alfred or someone else that Alucard is Dracula backward.   Spare “The Great Detective” his dignity.

Also let’s be honest.  Dr. Alucard is just a terrible alias and Dracula is just asking to be caught.  And not just because he was overly excited by a platter of steak tartare.   This Dracula is so obvious I think he wants to be captured.  ...I think it’s a cry for help.   

5.   Dracula’s death scene.  Batman in the main DC comics continuity and especially in the more kid friendly animated universe does. not. kill.   Yet here in this animated movie (Tied to the “Kid friendly” The Batman animated series) has a scene of Dracula defeated and on his knees.  And what does Batman do?:

Weak and on his knees Dracula looks up at him and goes “You’re Bruce Wayne.”  (Someone clearly forgot one of Dracula’s powers is supposed to be mind reading!  In fact I’m adding that next.  The de-powering of Dracula.)   Batman melodramatically has his cape spread in front of a giant sunlamp’s light.  (No, really...)  It briefly looks like Batman is going to show him mercy.  Batman corrects Dracula by saying “I’m Batman.”  And it’s a fairly cool delivery but then he lowers his spread cape so that the light kills Dracula.  Who is cowering ON HIS KNEES!  Our hero, ladies and gentlemen!  

Questions and problems related to this:

A.  Does killing Dracula not count as taking a life because he’s undead?   Isn’t that some sort of racism, Batman?   And if Dracula doesn’t count as alive where’s the line? Does that mean Solomon Grundy and Swamp Thing don’t technically count as alive?   Grundy is literally a zombie.  Swamp Thing is the consciousness of a dead man absorbed into “The Green” and in a plant-avatar body.  Run, Swampy!  Batman’s goin’ gardening!    

B.    Does this not count as murder because it’s technically the lamp that killed Dracula and not Batman? This is a dubious technicality.  Again, where’s the line?

C.   Honestly, based on how it played out, it looked like he WAS going to show Dracula mercy but once he realized Dracula knew his secret identity he decided to go “Nope.”

D.   Even The Avengers don’t try to kill Dracula anymore.   Marvel heroes have elaborate restraints and special cells for holding Dracula.   If Tony Stark can do it, so can Batman.  Wouldn’t Dracula’s blood addiction and predatory instincts and animal-like inclinations from an arcane blood mutation that grants superhuman powers earn him his own special cell at Arkham? 

E.   We saw at the start of The Batman vs. Dracula that Dracula had easily been held in chains in a coffin away from his homeland.  So obviously he can be contained.  Was Batman just being lazy?  In Batman The Brave and the Bold we learn he has Nth metal handcuffs that can hold a ghost.  He should be able to contain Dracula.  

F.   Come on!  Dracula is easy to contain compared to The Joker yet The Joker is spared!

G.  This was a missed opportunity.  Think how interesting a recurring Dracula could have been.  He could have escaped or been captured.   And if he was captured a semi-reformed Dracula would make for a fun reluctant hero or anti-hero (So long as he keeps all of his powers, of course.)  Imagine the banter if Bruce held him in The Bat cave. 

6.  Dracula is too depowered.  Marvel and DC are both guilty of making Dracula burn in the sun (like in the movies) but in the original Stoker novel Dracula could walk in the daylight just fine. He was just weaker by day because it was not his natural time.  And he could not take animal form by day.   

Marvel once published a graphic novel of the original Dracula story by Bram Stoker and in that they remember that Dracula could walk by day. And they claim the graphic novel is the backstory for the version of Dracula in Tomb of Dracula but by the time you get to Tomb of Dracula he burns in the sun.  So go figure...  

Anyway, Marvel’s Dracula has the power to conjure storms, turn into a wolf, bat, and mist.  He has been raised from the dead many times.   He can read minds. And he can hypnotize. Of course he has all the traditional weaknesses too but still this version seems far more powerful than DC’s Dracula...

 Marvel’s dracula is just superior.  

And what makes it more frustrating is Dracula is in the public domain. That means anyone can use him.   And they could have and still could do so much more with him.

7.    It’s a little odd that Dracula’s wife in The Batman vs. Dracula is Carmilla.  Carmilla is a lesbian in her original novel. She’s bisexual in Castlevania.  I don’t mind her being bisexual.  And I don’t really mind this twist. It’s just a little odd.

8.  I keep wishing they would remake the animated movie but with a more serious / adult feel to it, like Justice League: Dark.   And I wish DC was as good about finding clever uses for their Dracula as Marvel does.  DC’s version goes to waste.

Just look how cool he looks!  Why aren’t they using him?!

[julesplanb-blog]

Don’t cross the themes!

The following note contains heavy spoilers about the plot of both 1984 & 2016 Ghostbusters movies, and a tiny one - a line of dialogue - from Ocean’s 8.

“Having only girls in the new Ghostbusters movie makes no sense and is as sexist as having only males, you -”

Ok so, this is where I’m gonna cut that quote from about 78 random dudes sharing their opinion on Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters with me (so much love I did not ask for <3), because this is usually where said opinion goes from PG to NC-17. I said in a previous note that arguing with people about movies was one of the greatest things in life... provided that people’s opinions were at least a tad respectful, and a tad built on something, ANYTHING, beyond basic casual hatred for women (oh hello, guys who want to remake The Last Jedi!). That being said, I’m going to be the bigger person here and still take time to answer those 78 gentlemen with a little piece on why, in my humble opinion, having women in the Ghostbusters reboot not only makes sense, but makes it a more functioning movie when it comes to characters and even themes. Ok, let’s do this.

First things first: while I’m interested in comparison, I don't think it's relevant to try and rank the 2 movies: I personally enjoy the 2016 more, but I can acknowledge its weaknesses. It’s just than what works in it is way more compelling to me as a viewer (and, yes, as a female viewer). On the other hand, I’ll admit the qualities of the original, mostly to be an effortless piece of good writing, but it’s weaker where the 2016 shines, and vice-versa. Ultimately, those are 2 different movies, actually telling two different stories. Yes, I know, both are about a team of semi-misfits chasing ghosts. But one story focus (1984) is around a philosophical idea, and the second is about human/women condition (2016). One is built around a (fun, entertaining and functioning) concept, i.e. busting ghosts, the other is about characters paths. To the point where I think there’s close to no character arc in the original Ghostbusters. I mean think about it: how did the characters changed between beginning and end? When the film starts, they already know each other’s, have a functioning relationship and it turns out all along that they were pretty much right on everything from the start. They’re not exactly challenged on their beliefs, way to see the world, behaviours or just plain personalities, not even Bill Murray’s Peter Venkman, when this character is actually both a jerk and a fraud. Sure, Sigourney Weaver’s Dana calls him a fraud at some point, but this is a Tchekov gun being flashed without being shot, since from there, Dana is possessed by Zuul and kind of written off the movie (which is a shame). Now, I won’t make this piece a full digression on why Peter Venkman is a jerk and how this fact could make us file the movie itself under “lovable but still a bit problematic”, yet this still deserves a couple lines because when you look closely: Peter Venkman is a jerk, borderline creepy (and the movie never gives us fuel to think otherwise, for real). Actually, Peter Venkman is pretty much what the bad guy of Ghostbusters 2016 (Rowan) could have become if he had any kind of power. We see Peter act just the way Rowan would if he had the upper hand on someone: he cheats on his own experiment, abuses a student as a faculty, make creepy innuendos to women who did not ask for this...  I make this point because as the 2016 bad guy, Rowan makes perfect sense. Meanwhile, there’s no actual human big bad in the 1984 version, because there’s no specific reason for the events to happen when they happen.

Exactly, why is New York infected by ghosts in the original Ghostbusters? Ok, I wasn’t alive back in 1984 and maybe there's something I miss, a reference to a historical “mood” if you’ll have it, maybe an “end of the world vibe” I don’t not know about. But between some obvious referencing to Exorcist and the general comedic tone of the film, I’ve always watched Ghostbusters as some kind of parody or reappropriation of a genre, and not a reflection of its time. And it’s okay. All of the above (well, maybe not Venkman never being called on his jerkiness): the lack of proper character arcs, human villain or symbolic reason for the infestation to happen. First, because, thanks to great dialogues & great acting by already beloved actors, we still care for those guys. But more important: because you can have great stories without it. Stories propulsed by something else than character development, such as... a theme. And 1984 Ghostbusters statement is a pretty damn interesting one: science beats superstition, well, science can explain supernatural, science beats ghosts, science beats freakin’ Gods, so man can beat god. Seriously, This is a great theme, and the script is nicely built around it, up to an ending where we see nerds vanquish a god with scientific tech. 1984 Ghosbusters makes writing choices and works, and as a movie about defeating incarnations of both childhood and adulthood fears (monsters and gods) it turns out to be a smart and timeless piece of pop culture. 

Now you can argue that if it’s timeless, did it really needed to be rebooted in the first place? But see, the beauty of this reboot is that it does not try to redo the same thing. Because the 2016 Ghostbusters makes completely different writing choices, revolves around something else entirely, and if its theme also features some universal / timeless aspects, its treatment makes it a very relevant piece to the time it came out. So let’s break it down: 

First, I believe its writing to be deeply entwined with characters’ flaws and development. What they want, what they lack, is the main propulsion for the story. And if we agree to say Kristen Wiig’s Erin Gilbert is our main character here, what she wants is consideration by her pairs. You can argue she has that at the beginning: teacher in a decent university, about to get tenure, but remember that to get this far, she had to leave behind her best friend and what she actually believed in. She had to fit. Meanwhile Abby is still working on what she wants but in a D-list school and only because the dean has no idea who she is. Both have to hide what matters to them to be included. And this theme as well as Erin’s relationship with Abby is one of the pivot point of the movie: the past and the complicated present of the characters weigh into the script, introduce conflict, propulsion and ultimately, resolution.

But this quest for being legit really works for the 4 of our characters: Abby & Jillian get their a** fired as soon as the dean actually remembers what they’re working on. Patty too: while she works un ungrateful job below the surface, she actually knows the city above ground better than any other character, not only places and localisation but historical perspective, arts... (It’s also interesting to note, if we want to compare the 2 movies that in 1984, Dana sees a ghost and become a client of the Ghostbusters (then a victim of said ghost). In 2016, the woman who sees a ghost, i.e. Patty, joins the team as a Ghostbuster herself. Women are no more plot devices here: they have they own agendas & needs, they’re the engine of the story.)

So you have this characters trying to be acknowledged as professionals, which works perfectly with the concept “scientists turning into ghosts hunters”. But what’s even better: it works perfectly with an all-female group of characters. Why? Well, because in real life, you can totally be denied the legitimacy you deserve just. for. being. a. woman.

It’s also completely in resonance with a movie about sorority and the way girls have to stick out for each other (Abby & Erin reconciliation). Sexism could actually be seen as the villain here. It’s a picture paint with small brushes (and that’s something to add to the film credit) but it’s there: the little jokes about online comments - an obvious yes short nod to the guys who managed to troll the movie notation before it even came out (isn’t it grand though? I mean those douchebags are so freaking predictable Paul Feig managed to write them in before they even manifest themselves) - the dean behaviour... Apart from that, 2016 Ghostbusters does not state out loud the fact those women are depreciated for being women, for it doesn’t need to. Because you know what? Women knows. And it's their freaking film.

Of course the clearest illustration of that idea has to be the bad guy. Rowan is indeed a misogynist jerk, but beyond that, is the perfect incarnation of those women antagonist in 2016. So in 1984 Ghostbusters, we don’t know exactly why the wall between the worlds is getting thinner right now: the guy behind it is a god and well, gods work in mysterious ways. But in 2016, the grand master is a human. Because that version is not about god vs men, it’s about men vs men. Because not all men / humans are equal. 

It makes perfect sense her to have the ghosts being summoned by a villain who happens to be a persona of entitled jerks feeling they’re not recognized for their true value (hey! theme again!). Except Rowan / those guys are not denied respect on an essentialist aspect of themselves (being a woman, black, gay...) but because they’re actually not as good as they thing they are.

It's a (lighter, more comedy-compatible) version of that awfully sad and way too real guy who randomly shoot at people because one girl turned down his advances one day, the guy blaming his lack of acknowledgement by the society on society being unfair to him, but deciding that the best course of action is to destroy said society instead of proving it wrong. While Abby, Erin, Jillian and Patty decide to take action and working their a** off on proving they ARE RIGHT (to extreme extend too, with Erin releasing the ghost to prove a point in her need for legitimacy), Rowan just wants to burn it all, to no one’s benefit but his own crave for power and destruction. Do you see why that guy nemesis needed to be a Erin Gilbert and not a Peter Venkman?

Having women serves the movie all the way, up till the end. And as a character-driven movie, its script does the best possible thing: giving characters, not what they wanted, but what they needed. For in the end, it’s not that much about acknowledgment (though the skyline scene is heartwarming <3) for the city still ask the theam to be super discreet, it’s about doing what you want regardless of people’s opinion, knowking yourself that you are good at what you’re doing, and doing it because you are good at it. Trust me boys, that speaks to every girl here.

In fact everything in the new Ghostbusters makes sense for the viewers of its time. Which is exactly what a good reboot should do. It’s all in the details, and mostly in the references to the previous one.

The Ghostbuster 2016 doesn't aim at telling the 1984 one is bad, but states that things have changed. The references are smart and symbolic but not too obvious that a new viewer would miss a plot point for not knowing it. It’s the perfect balance: taking what worked and was good and put it in a different time. And the times, they are a-changing, people. Sometimes for the better, such as Bill Murray being again a jerk but getting punished for it, sometimes for worse.

For instance : the brownstone that the guys get at the beginning of 1984 but the girls can’t afford before the end, stating, maybe, just maybe, that women or in this instance, that this new generation will have to work harder for stuff such as rent. And take the biggest symbol / reference to the original: the giant Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.

In this movie, he’s not being defeated by high tech, but by the Swiss army knife “every girl should have on her” (because, yes, being a girl is a source of danger just by itself). While the cast of the new movie is literally being smothered by the incarnation of the previous movie, by the “good old times”, the girl who finally came to believe in herself defeats it by "being a girl" If this not exhilarating metaphor, what is? This is both an homage and refusal to say "original is better because it's the first!" Nope, times change, women are here to claim their places in movies, in the real world, and that new Ghostbusters wasn't gender swapped for nothing, it was because it fits tis day and age, and it was because it fits the theme

Ghostbusters 2016 is grounded in its time, thus being not a useless reboot but a reappropriation of a great idea, playing it across a different era in terms of economy, society, women position...

It's not gratuitous. It's better this way.

Now, I’m aware this piece comes out a bit late to end it on “go see the new Ghostbusters ladies, it rocks and those trolls are just petty men realizing the world is not ENTIRELY them anymore”.  So I’m going to end it on “go see Ocean’s 8 ladies, it rocks and those trolls are just...” you get the point. Truth is: Ocean’s 8 is a decent summer movie, functioning, fun, witty and supported by a great cast.   

It also acknowledges, in *one line*, why the team is only women, in a very clever, resonant way: it’s smarter to make a heist with women, because women are ignored. That’s it. The movie doesn’t say more, doesn’t need to say more. Because women know that’s true, know they’re not as visible and considered as their male co-workers even when doing an equal or better job. Women will get it just hearing that line. And it’s their freaking movie. You know what’s the narrative justification for Ocean’s 11 (11!) or original Ghostbusters to be all male? Well, there isn’t any. Because that was just default setting. And boy am I glad to see this changing. Even if it’s just line by line.

[wazafam]

The Horror genre is a classic favorite of many with movies full of scenes that get the heart racing and send chills down the spine. Most films in the genre are a gore-fest, with the living dying in all kinds of scary ways and the dead doing all sorts of terrifying things. But, not all of them follow the cliché formula of horror films.

RELATED: 10 Horror Movies That Everyone Can Enjoy (Even If You're A Scaredy-Cat)

Since the 1980s, some film producers have mixed horror with other genres, thus catering to audiences who might be interested in some chills and thrills without losing the ability to get a peaceful night of sleep after the credits roll. This lighter horror stays true to the genre by providing the creeps while mixing things up with dark humor, comedy, and sometimes psychological thriller elements.

10 Gremlins (1984) - Available on HBO Max

When Billy's Christmas gift goes through some unexpected changes, all hell breaks loose. What started out as a fluffy pet turns into several terrible monsters all because 3 golden rules weren't followed. Chaos ensues as the creatures-turned-monsters unleash all kinds of mischief on the town with deadly consequences for some.

Gremlins is a creature feature that's not too spooky and has some comedic elements that help to lighten the mood. Some of the violent scenes make it a little less family-friendly, especially for younger children, but it remains a classic favorite of many even now, with a surprisingly great sequel too.

9 Ghostbusters (1984) - Available on DirecTV, Freeform, and AMC+

When there's something strange in the neighborhood, that's definitely a job for the Ghostbusters. In this film, combining comedy and horror, a group of friends set up a paranormal removal company in New York City to capture ghosts, with spooky and hilarious results.

Ghostbusters is a beloved classic for many and one of the first films to delve into a unique form of the horror genre that balances the chills and thrills with humor. The 2018 Ghostbusters reboot, starring Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, is also a good one to try, taking this classic, beloved story into a modern setting while keeping the spooky and comedic elements the original film is loved and known for.

8 Beetlejuice (1988) - Available for purchase on Prime Video

When a married couple suddenly dies in a car accident and gets stuck in their house as ghosts, they're left with no option but to haunt the new family that moves in. Unfortunately, instead of frightening the guests, their actions come off as comical instead, making Beetlejuice a little more hilarious than scary.

The Tim Burton production is another classic favorite that's ideal for almost any age group. It's mostly a fantasy comedy film, so it's perfect for viewers looking for something that won't keep them up at night.

7 The Addams Family (1991) - Available on Starz

Supernatural horror meets dark humor in The Addams Family--a story of a family that's both creepy and intriguing. The story kicks off with the supposed return of a long-lost relative and a plot to swindle the family out of their fortune.

RELATED: The Addams Family: 10 Spooky Facts Fans Didn't Know About The Movies

The story is based on characters from a 1964 TV series and while it has some spooky elements, it's mostly lighthearted with plenty of dark humor. If the movie feels too dark, the 2019 animated version of The Addams Family is a good alternative.

6 The Frighteners (1996) - Available on Starz

Following a car accident that killed his wife, a man discovers he can talk to the dead. He uses his newfound ability to communicate with the dead to make a living until he discovers something sinister and dangerous.

For many, The Frighteners is a familiar movie that never gets old or too boring to rewatch. The moderate violence and gore make it easier to swallow down than most horror films. Although it has comedy elements, it has some intense scare scenes befitting the horror genre.

5 The Others (2001) - Available on Max Go and DirecTV

Nothing is as it seems in The Others, a psychological horror film with some good scares and a shocking twist. The story follows a mother living with her two children in a home they believe is haunted and all the creepiness that ensues as they try to get rid of the paranormal entities in their home.

Unlike some horror movies that rely on over-the-top special effects to be creepy, The Others puts a chilling twist on the all-too-familiar sensation of feeling like there's something lurking in the shadows.

4 Coraline (2009) - Available for purchase on Prime Video

The stop-motion animation format might lighten the horrific elements of Coraline but it's still a pretty spooky watch. After moving to a new home with her family, Coraline discovers a parallel universe that seems better than the real world. But, as she soon discovers, nothing is as it seems and some things are just too good to be true.

RELATED: 10 Dark Familly Movies To Watch If You Loved Coraline

Coraline is an easy story to follow with just the right amount of creepiness to classify it as a horror movie without pushing it too far up the scary scale.

3 ParaNorman (2012) - Available on Netflix

Due to his ability to talk to the dead, a young boy named Norman finds himself isolated from his family and endlessly teased by his peers. All that changes when a dead witch summons the cursed dead responsible for her death and it's up to Norman to save the town.

As a stop-motion animated film, ParaNorman doesn't feel too much like a horror film even though it does have some creepy elements. For the most part, it's an entertaining comedy-horror that won't leave viewers with terrifying nightmares.

2 Victor Frankenstein (2015) - Available for purchase on Prime Video

Based on adaptations of the 1818 novel, Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, Victor Frankenstein presents the literary classic of creating life from death from a new perspective. The story is told through Igor's eyes, the young assistant to Victor Frankenstein who bears witness to the latter's resurrection of the dead.

The reimagining of the age-old tale features the same monster from the original with a couple of jump-scares and mostly tame horror elements balanced with witty dialogue.

1 A Quiet Place (2018) - Available on Fubo TV

In a post-apocalyptic world where monsters hunt their prey by sound, a family struggles to stay alive by staying silent.  A Quiet Place is a movie filled with more suspense and tension than scares, but still checks all the boxes of a horror film.

The lack of dialogue in most of the film does make the jump-scares that much more thrilling and intense, keeping viewers at the edges of their seats throughout.

NEXT: 10 Horror Movies That Make Us Laugh

10 Best Tame Horror Movies Even Your Grandmother Could Handle (& Where To Stream Them) from https://ift.tt/2R0W1HZ

[mesonishashank]

From Star Wars To Super Mario: 22 Crazy Cereals Based on Movies, TV, And Video Games

The most utterly ridiculous cereals ever based on movies, TV shows, video games, and more

The 1980s and 1990s were a great time to be a kid if you loved cereal. Every trip to the grocery store would find a new offering on the breakfast cereal aisle, taking a movie, TV show, video game, or celebrity and turning it into a sugary morning treat.

While themed cereal can still be found in stores--we're looking at you, Fruity Pebbles--the glory days that saw practically every title getting its own special blend of marshmallows, corn, rice, and oats have come to an end. Ralston, the company behind many of the best-remembered offerings, no longer dabbles in licensed foods. In fact, based on their website, the company now specializes in cereal that looks similar to name brands like Fruit Loops and Cocoa Puffs, while being different enough to be marketed as a different product.How the might have fallen. Then again, in its heyday, Ralston was actually known as Ralston Purina and dedicated a sizable chunk of its business into making pet food, so perhaps its better off now.

How important is taste and originality in these cereals anyway? After all, one of the biggest reasons anyone bought these was due to the characters emblazoned on the boxes and the prizes that were included with the cereal. Who cares what Batman cereal tastes like when it comes with a bank in the shape of the Caped Crusader? Thankfully, there were still some colorful and tasty cereals to be found back then, right Spider-Man?

Take a trip back in time with GameSpot as we revisit 22 of those cereals--both good and bad. How many of these do you remember sitting down with at breakfast?

Image: Sony Entertainment

1. Urkel-Os

There was a time when nothing in pop culture was hotter than Steve Urkel, the nerdy character on Family Matters. In an age where the TGIF programming block ruled the world, Urkel was its king. This cereal that was first released in 1991--and remained in production until 2000--is proof of that.

Image: Ralston

2. Nintendo Cereal System

When it came to video games, nothing was hotter in the late '80s than the Nintendo Entertainment System. It permeated pop culture in such a way that it spawned merchandise, cartoons, and even the movie The Wizard. Naturally, like many popular properties, it also got a cereal--two if you want to get technical. In each box were two bags, one a Super Mario Bros. cereal and one for The Legend of Zelda. What a time to be alive.

Image: Ralston

3. Bill and Ted's Excellent Cereal

Excellent! A Bill & Ted cereal not only existed, but it wasn't based on the movies. Instead, this cereal followed the cartoon and featured the animated versions of Bill and Ted emblazoned on the box. The real joy of this breakfast wasn't the marshmallows, though. Instead, it was the prize that came with the cereal--a cassette tape holder shaped like Bill and Ted's phone booth time machine.

Image: Ralston

4. Smurfberry Crunch

For many, Smurfberry Crunch is the gold standard for sugary cereals based on TV shows and movies. The fruity corn and wheat cereal first debuted in 1981 and lasted for years before an addition to the Smurf's cereal line--Magic Berries--that added marshmallows to the mix in 1987.

Image: Post Cereals

5. The Addams Family

Addams Family cereal sounds like a great idea, in theory. However, its pieces were made to resemble skulls, dismembered hands, and headless dolls--all things very familiar to this particular family. Serving a bowl of that to a kid could be pretty traumatic, though. However, there was a period of the time where the "toy" it included was a flashlight made to resemble a character from the movie. That's pretty exciting for a kid.

Image: Ralston

6. Donkey Kong

Mario and Zelda had to share a cereal. Before that, though, Donkey Kong got a box all to himself. According to the box, it was "crunchy barrels of fun." While that doesn't exactly found appetizing, what's not to love about a video game-themed cereal with a taste similar to Captain Crunch?

Image: Ralston

7. E.T. Cereal

While the E.T. Atari game may have been a colossal bomb, the cereal was not the same case. Taking a note from E.T.'s love of Reese's Pieces in the movie, the cereal was flavored like peanut butter and chocolate. Among the bonus prizes included in the box were trading cards, as well as a picture of Michael Jackson and E.T.--because why not?

Image: General Mills

8. The Real Ghostbusters

This is another cereal based on a cartoon that's based on a movie. This particular cereal was released three times under three different names and was incredibly simple, in terms of design. Marshmallow ghosts mixed with fruity Os, to create the Ghostbusters logo in your cereal bowl. The best part of this cereal, though, was the prizes that came in the box--from glow-in-the-dark door hangers to buttons to frisbees.

Image: Ralston

9. Batman

Like many Ralston cereals, Batman essentially consisted of themed corn pieces--bats in this instance--and a standard sweet flavor. The prizes were where Batman was able to shine. Honestly, the only reason to get this cereal was for the Batman bank that came attached to the front. Who's going to keep your change safer than the Dark Knight?

Image: Ralston

10. Gremlins

This sweetened cereal may not be all that exciting--its pieces are meant to look like Gizmo but they don't--but it's hard to resist something as adorable as the mogwai on its box. Inside the box with the cereal was a sticker, which is a decent bonus. However, the big prize was something you had to actually mail away for--a plush Gizmo.

Image: Ralston

11. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

It's essentially Rice Chex ("ninja nets") with marshmallows. The marshmallows in question are shaped like ninja weapons and pizzas, everything needed for a radically tasty breakfast. None of that matters, though, without what is perhaps the most beloved prize of all time-- a Ninja Turtle-shaped cereal bowl. You could eat your Ninja Turtles cereal out of a Ninja Turtles bowl.

Image: Ralston

12. Fruity Pebbles/Cocoa Pebbles

Fruity Pebbles and Cocoa Pebbles are undeniably the most successful licensed cereal of all time. They were first released in 1971 and can still be found in stores today, almost 50 years later. Clearly, Post stumbled onto something good when it came to The Flintstones.

Image: Post Cereals

13. Spider-Man

The Spider-Man cereal from 1995 is very similar to Ralston's Ninja Turtles offering. This time, though, the "ninja nets" were spiderwebs and the marshmallows were supposed to be pumpkin bombs, "spider symbols," Peter Parker's camera, and Kingpin. In reality, they were essentially blobs of various colors.

Image: Ralston

14. GI Joe Action Stars

This cereal arrived in stores in 1985--the same year the cartoon premiered. It wasn't colorful or flashy, but it was part of a complete breakfast to help create a real American hero… probably. What's most important is the mini-comic books that came packaged in the box. Cereal and comics, what more do you need?

Image: Ralston

15. C-3PO's

And you thought the Star Wars Christmas Special was the most shameless cash-in on this franchise. These were essentially Honey Nut Cheerios in a figure-eight shape. As for prizes, they varied from trading cards to a Rebel Rocket toy.

Image: Kellogg's

16. Mr. T

We pity the fool that never got to try Mr. T's cereal. Why did Mr. T have a cereal, you ask? Between his appearance in Rocky III and his role on The A-Team, Mr. T was a pop culture sensation in the early 1980s and that got him his own breakfast. If only they'd come up with a better idea than pieces shaped like T and literally nothing else, though.

Image: Quaker

17. Pac-Man

Following the success of Donkey Kong's cereal, it was Pac-Man's turn. This cereal features Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, and ghost marshmallows, along with sweet balls of corn. Among the prizes offered inside was bubblegum. There was also the possibility of winning a full-size Pac-Man arcade game.

Image: General Mills

18. Donkey Kong Jr.

Donkey Kong cereal was a little too basic--thankfully, Donkey Kong Jr. righted the wrongs of his father. Out are the crunchy barrels. Instead, this cereal is made up of pieces shaped and flavored like bananas and berries, putting a fruity twist on breakfast.

Image: Ralston

19. Rainbow Brite

Of course, the Rainbow Brite cereal--based on the cartoon and movie--is rainbow-colored and shaped. It's essentially Fruit Loops, but with half-circles instead of full loops. The only notable prize, really, was a colorful chain necklace you could mail away for. What's the point of buying cereal without a toy in it?

Image: Ralston

20. Morning Funnies

With so many cereals based on well-known cartoons and movies, opting to create one based on newspaper comic strips might not seem like a cutting-edge idea. What's even more bizarre is the cereal itself had nothing to do with the various comic strips it licensed. It was simply made up of smiling faces in a variety of colors.

Image: Ralston

21. Booty O's

Where do you start with Booty O's? What started as an on-screen joke made by the trio known as New Day became an actual breakfast cereal you could buy in stores and a never-ending string of merchandise. The oat-based breakfast comes packed with marshmallows that look like trombones and booties, to name a few shapes. If only Ralston was still a cereal giant that could mass produce it.

Image: WWE

22. Pro Stars

Not every cereal can be based on a fictional character, right? That's where Pro Stars, which puts the spotlight on sports celebrities, comes in. We know what you're thinking: That's what Wheaties are for, right? Thankfully, Pro Stars added funny to the mix and included a contest to win breakfast with Wayne Gretzky. Top that, Wheaties.

Image: General Mills

from GameSpot https://ift.tt/2k11udR from Blogger https://ift.tt/2IRgRU2