[Film] Ghostbusters: Afterlife - Nov 19, 2021

[YellowKing]

I'm not going to get into a debate as to whether a movie objectively sucks or not; art is subjective. If there are people who loved it, good for them. There are plenty of movies I love that other people hate.

But the facts bear out that A) the movie did not have the success Sony had hoped for and B) the movie under-performing pretty much torpedoed any ideas for a sequel starring the same cast.

But if you're morbidly curious as to why some people hated it, watch this excellent hour long take-down by everyone's favorite internet curmudgeon Mr. Plinkett

[Kraken]

Comedies only need to pass one test: Did I LOL?

The only thing I remember about Girl Ghostbusters is Chris Hemsworth as their secretary. I got at least a few chuckles out of his performance.

[GreenGoo]

I really wish she'd stop politicizing her movie. People didn't like it because it sucked, not because it had women in it.

I can agree with the first part. In fact, fuck off person (because she is so unfamiliar to me that I have no idea who she is, except that she had the least interesting character in the new movie. In fact I kind of hated her character), because I couldn't care less what you think or feel about other peoples' work or how it relates to your work.

That said, I liked the new one. Imo it was better than #3 and possibly #2. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, YK.

#1 was awesome though.

[GreenGoo]

Comedies only need to pass one test: Did I LOL?

The only thing I remember about Girl Ghostbusters is Chris Hemsworth as their secretary. I got at least a few chuckles out of his performance.

I thought Kristen Wiig did a good job, and Kate McKinnon was a surprise in how funny I thought she was. I wanted to like McCarthy but couldn't, and Jones was terrible. It's possible it was the writing and directing, but man, I hated her character.

The movie itself was what it was. It was on par with the original as far as writing and directing (imo) except the original was original at the time, and had the conflux of Murray and Aykroyd. Ramis was good (and wrote it, I think?) but Hudson was just along for the ride, which really wasn't his fault. With Hudson I'm positive that they just didn't do any writing for his character, and the director wasn't interested in doing anything with him, particularly when he had Murray and Aykroyd to work with.

Moranis did wonders with the little bit he had as well, although he has certainly been funnier elsewhere. Weaver was fine, even good at times, but this was a vehicle for Murray and Aykroyd and it showed.

[YellowKing]

That said, I liked the new one. Imo it was better than #3 and possibly #2. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, YK.

There is no #3 until 2020.

[GreenGoo]

That said, I liked the new one. Imo it was better than #3 and possibly #2. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, YK.

There is no #3 until 2020.

In my defense I can barely remember #2, which is indicative of my opinion of it. I figured #3 was so bad that I simply couldn't remember it at all. I did search my memory and failed to come up with any specifics (because they didn't exist, it seems).

[ImLawBoy]

But the facts bear out that A) the movie did not have the success Sony had hoped for and B) the movie under-performing pretty much torpedoed any ideas for a sequel starring the same cast.

To be fair, the box office suffered at least in part to political backlash (where a number of people were vocally, and at times stridently, against the movie before they had even seen it simply because it was cast with women) and in part some people's reactions to Paul Feig (which also, at its core, arose from the political backlash). Had there not been said backlash, the movie likely would have done better as it was generally well reviewed. It's impossible to say whether it would have turned a profit in that case, of course.

I thought the movie was acceptable, but not fantastic. It certainly didn't live up to the original. I don't hate GB2, but I do recognize it as a significant step down from the first (I'd still probably put it ahead of the Feig reboot).

I thought Kristen Wiig did a good job, and Kate McKinnon was a surprise in how funny I thought she was. I wanted to like McCarthy but couldn't, and Jones was terrible. It's possible it was the writing and directing, but man, I hated her character.

This is pretty accurate to my recollection, too. I usually find Jones funny in the bits she does on SNL (especially her Weekend Update stuff), but it didn't seem like she was given much to work with in the movie.

Hudson was just along for the ride, which really wasn't his fault. With Hudson I'm positive that they just didn't do any writing for his character, and the director wasn't interested in doing anything with him, particularly when he had Murray and Aykroyd to work with.

Even though I've jokingly referred to him as the token Ghostbuster in the past, his real role was to be the everyman on the team. He wasn't a paranormal scientist - he was just a dude. His key moment was helping the mayor relate to what was happening. (Or maybe I'm overthinking things.)

[Jaymann]

His key moment was helping the mayor relate to what was happening.

"I have seen shit that'll turn you white."

[McNutt]

Hudson's character did a great job of translating the insanity of the group to the average non-paranormal scientist. I liked that role a lot more than I thought I would.

[Daehawk]

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/dan-a ... 0-6469895/

A new Ghostbusters movie is coming in 2020, and now we've learned a little more about it. At least two of the original franchise's stars, Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson, will reprise their roles, and other original cast members might come back as well.

The new Ghostbusters follows the story of a single mother (Carrie Coon) who is raising two children played by Finn Wolfhard (Stranger Things, It) and McKenna Grace (I, Tonya). Paul Rudd also stars in the movie.

[Daehawk]

Bill Murray WILL be in it.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/bill-murray ... confirmed/

[Rumpy]

According to some promo material, apparently it's going to be called Ghostbusters: Afterlife

[Daehawk]

Ugh I thought this was going to be a real Ghostbusters movie with the original guys. Not a kids movie where the Ghostbusters have cameos.

[McNutt]

Ahhhh haaa ha haaaaa! What a letdown.

I really want to know if those of you who had really been looking forward to this movie are still as excited. That looks nothing like what I was expecting and not something I want to see at all.

The entire trailer was like a big bass drop moment. What's under the car cover??? Bass drop.

It also looked completely devoid of humor. Is this going to be a drama?

[Smoove_B]

I really want to know if those of you who had really been looking forward to this movie are still as excited.

Yes. It's very clearly Stranger Busters. or Ghost Things.

It also looked completely devoid of humor. Is this going to be a drama?

I don't think the tone is going to be the same as the original(s), no. I bet there are comedic dialogue elements, but more along the lines of what you'd expect in 2019, not 1984.

I don't want to see old Ghostbusters limping around and complaining about diabetes and sciatica. imagining a world where they retired and 30+ years later their stuff shows up in a small town where their extended families now live is a much better story premise, IMHO.

[Jaymann]

It also looked completely devoid of humor. Is this going to be a drama?

Yes, they discovered magic gas that still burns after 30 years.

[McNutt]

But if this is going to take Ghostbusters in a completely different direction with new cast, new tone, etc., this is Ghostbusters in name only and is everything I hate about Hollywood. Just make a brand new movie/franchise.

[Octavious]

I don't know it looks like it could be cool. Different tone for sure but that might work.

[Smoove_B]

Just make a brand new movie/franchise.

I think that's what they're doing. But they're providing a connection between what we all remember from the 1980s and what's happening now in some random rural town in the middle of America. I'd actually prefer that strategy than one that completely reboots the franchise and totally ignores all prior works. To be clear, that can work, but given how beloved the original is, IMHO this type of reboot seemingly can build on that as well as pass the proverbial torch to a new generation.

[El Guapo]

Just make a brand new movie/franchise.

I think that's what they're doing. But they're providing a connection between what we all remember from the 1980s and what's happening now in some random rural town in the middle of America. I'd actually prefer that strategy than one that completely reboots the franchise and totally ignores all prior works. To be clear, that can work, but given how beloved the original is, IMHO this type of reboot seemingly can build on that as well as pass the proverbial torch to a new generation.

Yeah, I kind of like this approach, and enjoyed the trailer. The hackey Hollywood approach is just to reboot it and do the same thing (which is essentially what they did with Lady Ghostbusters). This is telling a new story connected in small ways to the earlier movies. Kind of the approach that I wish they had taken with the new Star Wars trilogy, incidentally.

Of course, it could easily still be bad, but the approach seems sound.

[raydude]

It has potential. I could see my daughters getting into this film. Also, I didn't catch it at first but the girl says "My grandfather died" and then a few seconds later they show Spengler's ghostbusters uniform. Likely a nod to actor Harold Ramis (Egon Spengler).

[Rumpy]

I actually thought it was really interesting. From this trailer we can assume that Egon got married, moved out of public life to the countryside to raise their children and took the bulk of Ghostbusters EQ with them. On the upside, any new technology we likely end up seeing can be explained that he was tinkering around until his death but never ended up deploying it.

I actually like that it's in nondescript location. I've always thought that ghost phenomenons should be more widespread instead of the movies always being set in NYC. I've always thought that setting a movie in New Orleans with its own paranormal history would be fun. This town actually feels a little like Eureka, and maybe for all I know it's the same set, but it's also got a bit of a Eureka vibe throughout the trailer. Strange things were always happening in that small town.

The only thing is, I'd have used older kids. I find it ridiculous that the kids are joyriding around when the kids are not even old enough to have their drivers licenses, and it takes a lot of suspension of disbelief. Make them a bit older and it'd be more believable with less conceit. When you see Finn's character in the bucket seat, what should be a cool moment, makes me think "OK, so he's very young looking and very skinny!" and looks a bit ridiculous. Age them up a bit and it wouldn't be so distracting.

[EvilHomer3k]

I really liked the trailer. It hit a lot of nostalgic notes for me and introduced new characters well. It seems like it could be a very enjoyable movie. Not a single cringe to be found either. I agree with everything Rumpy said except for the driving around part. Finn Wolfhard is 16. Easily old enough to have a drivers license. Second, kids who live in the country are driving at 14. Many have school/work permits. My cousin was driving at 14 and we have friends who live out of town with 14 year olds that drive. They also show Finn with some kids that absolutely look old enough to drive. I have no issue with that at all.

I want to see this movie.

[Rumpy]

Finn Wolfhard is 16.

Huh, well make that a very young-looking 16 year old. I guess he just has a really young looking face/body build that make him look much younger than he is.

[Daehawk]

Lets just call it a kids movie or otherwise Ill hate it.

[TheMix]

Finn Wolfhard is 16.

Huh, well make that a very young-looking 16 year old. I guess he just has a really young looking face/body build that make him look much younger than he is.

Finn is driving. It's the younger brother in the bucket seat. At least that's what it looked like to me. Though I'll grant you the younger brother does look a lot like him (at least the same mop of hair).

Edit: I watched a bit blown up (instead of the small window), and I think it's actually a younger sister. I didn't have sound on, though, so it's harder to tell.

[LawBeefaroni]

It has potential. I could see my daughters getting into this film. Also, I didn't catch it at first but the girl says "My grandfather died" and then a few seconds later they show Spengler's ghostbusters uniform. Likely a nod to actor Harold Ramis (Egon Spengler).

Maybe be they'll use an uncanny-valley straddling posthumous CGI Ramis ghost as the titular "afterlife" character.

[Kraken]

Ghostbuster Kids looks better than Ghostbuster Girls. I'd watch it.

[EvilHomer3k]

Finn Wolfhard is 16.

Huh, well make that a very young-looking 16 year old. I guess he just has a really young looking face/body build that make him look much younger than he is.

Finn is driving. It's the younger brother in the bucket seat. At least that's what it looked like to me. Though I'll grant you the younger brother does look a lot like him (at least the same mop of hair).

Edit: I watched a bit blown up (instead of the small window), and I think it's actually a younger sister. I didn't have sound on, though, so it's harder to tell.

Yes, it's a girl. McKenna Grace (Haunting of Hill House) is playing Phoebe.

[Skinypupy]

That trailer didn't do much for me at all. Then again, I don't have a ton of nostalgia for Ghostbusters. It was a fun enough movie, but I've never quite understood the rabid following it gets.

[dbt1949]

I like the new approach.

[Smoove_B]

It was a fun enough movie, but I've never quite understood the rabid following it gets.

Because in the summer of 1984, that movie was everything. I don't remember too many things clearly from my childhood, but seeing Ghostbusters (multiple times) that summer is as clear as day to me - like it happened yesterday.

Also, why the hell did my parents let me watch a movie where a ghost gives Ray Stantz a hummer?

[LawBeefaroni]

Also, why the hell did my parents let me watch a movie where a ghost gives Ray Stantz a hummer?

It was a dream. It wasn't a real hummer.

[Smoove_B]

Also, why the hell did my parents let me watch a movie where a ghost gives Ray Stantz a hummer?

It was a dream. It wasn't a real hummer.

[Kraken]

It was a fun enough movie, but I've never quite understood the rabid following it gets.

Because in the summer of 1984, that movie was everything. I don't remember too many things clearly from my childhood, but seeing Ghostbusters (multiple times) that summer is as clear as day to me - like it happened yesterday.

As a child of 27, I was less smitten. It was a fun enough movie.

[Blackhawk]

I actually liked that trailer. It looks like a good approach. 80s over-the-top comedic adventure just doesn't work as well these days. It's like making an 80s action flick in 2020. I don't think Commando would go over terribly well these days, or Rambo 2.

Besides, as to the roles of the original cast and the humorous bit, we've now seen exactly two minutes of a 100+ (probably) minute movie. That's 2%, and they may have been avoiding some of the humor to intentionally distance themselves from the slapstick farce that was the last Ghostbusters film. They set that idea into people's heads, then re-introduce the comedy with a later trailer.

[YellowKing]

I'll reserve judgment until another trailer - as pointed out, I think this one is just setting the foundation and the comedy will come later. That said, watching Finn Wolfhard fire a proton pack at a brick wall for 2 hours would be more entertaining than Paul Feig's movie.

[Rumpy]

Finn Wolfhard is 16.

Huh, well make that a very young-looking 16 year old. I guess he just has a really young looking face/body build that make him look much younger than he is.

Finn is driving. It's the younger brother in the bucket seat. At least that's what it looked like to me. Though I'll grant you the younger brother does look a lot like him (at least the same mop of hair).

Edit: I watched a bit blown up (instead of the small window), and I think it's actually a younger sister. I didn't have sound on, though, so it's harder to tell.

Yes, it's a girl. McKenna Grace (Haunting of Hill House) is playing Phoebe.

Heh, fair enough. I guess I'm not familiar enough with these kids to have known who was who.

[Victoria Raverna]

I actually liked that trailer. It looks like a good approach. 80s over-the-top comedic adventure just doesn't work as well these days. It's like making an 80s action flick in 2020. I don't think Commando would go over terribly well these days, or Rambo 2.

Besides, as to the roles of the original cast and the humorous bit, we've now seen exactly two minutes of a 100+ (probably) minute movie. That's 2%, and they may have been avoiding some of the humor to intentionally distance themselves from the slapstick farce that was the last Ghostbusters film. They set that idea into people's heads, then re-introduce the comedy with a later trailer.

Without over the top comedy, it is not going to be a "real" Ghostbusters movie. The original one was comedy first before other things.

[Kraken]

The original movie's cast was a who's-who of the day's top comedians. I didn't recognize any comedians in the trailer. So no, it's not going to be as funny.