Ghostbusters: Afterlife

[GreyLord]

The people who trashed the 2016 movie weren't Trolls, the 2016 movie was a snooze. It was bad.

And those who are trashing this version are the same type of critics who trashed the Joker movie as a movie for Incels and I suspect it will have the same effect as it did for Joker. I predict this Ghostbuster movie will make over a billion dollars as well.

I liked it. My wife got a laugh about the role reversal of the secretary (thor guy).

The new one, I think may have the problem from the ad that the first and second were comedies and thus far, this new one seems more on the serious side rather than a comedy.

It could be good, it could be fun...we'll see.

 

[Morrus]

I’m slightly apprehensive about it not being set in New York, which was a character in the other films. It’s one of a few cities in the world with that quality. I’m not sure some random small town can fill in for it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Undrave]

I liked it. My wife got a laugh about the role reversal of the secretary (thor guy).

The new one, I think may have the problem from the ad that the first and second were comedies and thus far, this new one seems more on the serious side rather than a comedy.

It could be good, it could be fun...we'll see.

Ghostbusters was a comedy, but it was also scary to the kids watching it in the 80s. The Real Ghostbusters also accounts for a HUGE chunk of the origin Ghostbusters Fandom, far more than Ghostbusters II really, and that show had some really striking scary stuff amidst the 'Slimer bothers Peter' gags.

I think this is actually a good track to go on, try to develop the world that fascinated people in the 80s and don't focus so much on the 'formula' of the first movie. Trying to copy the first one too closely lead to the repetitive Ghostbusters II and it's basically what Paul Feig was trying to do in 2016 because he was already an adult when he first saw Ghostbusters and he didn't 'get it' the same as people who were kids in the 80s.

Sure, be funny, but try to be more than that.

I’m slightly apprehensive about it not being set in New York, which was a character in the other films. It’s one of a few cities in the world with that quality. I’m not sure some random small town can fill in for it.

The World of the Ghostbusters is vast enough that you can set stories in all sorts of cities and each city can be its own new character and add its own flavour.

What I'M most apprehensive is that they play up some sort of 'destiny' angle... like "Your grand father was a Ghostbuster, you must pick up the mantle! It is your destiny!" or some naughty word. A proton pack isn't Excalibur! The point is that any shlob can pick it up and start busting (with the correct training). Ghostbusters are basically pest control, not Chosen Ones.

Heck, if Ghosts hadn't disappeared somehow you know there would have been competition popping up all over the place.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I agree. I'm not going to condemn the movie based on a teaser trailer, but it being set outside of NYC doesn't feel right to me. So much of New York's identity infuses the three prior movies.

I’m slightly apprehensive about it not being set in New York, which was a character in the other films. It’s one of a few cities in the world with that quality. I’m not sure some random small town can fill in for it.

 

[Umbran]

I’m slightly apprehensive about it not being set in New York, which was a character in the other films. It’s one of a few cities in the world with that quality. I’m not sure some random small town can fill in for it.

Any place can be a character. It just takes an understanding of the place and a good writer. Some place-characters are easier to write than others, though.

The Real Ghostbusters also accounts for a HUGE chunk of the origin Ghostbusters Fandom, far more than Ghostbusters II really, and that show had some really striking scary stuff amidst the 'Slimer bothers Peter' gags.

Which speaks a bit to having good writing. The Real Ghostbusters had JMS on a whole mess of episodes - the guy who went on to do Babylon 5, and effectively changed how genre shows were plotted forever afterwards...

Sure, be funny, but try to be more than that.

The critique I'm seeing float around, which probably has some merit, is that the first was actually a science fiction movie that happened to be performed by some of the funniest people in the business at the time. The second movie was written as a comedy, with some sci-fi elements.

I think the 2016 movie honestly tired to aim for the sci-fi by funny people idea, but a lot of folks got too wrapped up in the all-female cast to enjoy it.

This trailer makes me think they are leaning to a slightly different scifi - "Kids on bikes". The question remains how funny they can get...

The World of the Ghostbusters is vast enough that you can set stories in all sorts of cities and each city can be its own new character and add its own flavour.

I think even a small Oklahoma town can have its flavor... if the writers pay attention to it.

A proton pack isn't Excalibur! The point is that any shlob can pick it up and start busting (with the correct training).

Correct training? Um... the entire first movie is comedic in part because they had no frelling idea what they were doing! Ghostbusters bumble their way through, training or not.

Ghostbusters are basically pest control, not Chosen Ones.

Well, given the title, and the cameos... I'm guessing it is less "Chosen Ones" and more like, "We ghosts of the originals now have to find someone to clean up a mess, and if you can't haunt family, who can you haunt?"

 

[Morrus]

Any place can be a character. It just takes an understanding of the place and a good writer. Some place-characters are easier to write than others, though.

Sure, Captain Obvious.

I’m still slightly apprehensive about it not being set in New York, nevertheless.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, Captain Obvious.

Well, you said, "It’s one of a few cities in the world with that quality."

With which I disagree. So, not sure how it is so obvious, when you stated otherwise, but whatever.

 

[Undrave]

Well, given the title, and the cameos... I'm guessing it is less "Chosen Ones" and more like, "We ghosts of the originals now have to find someone to clean up a mess, and if you can't haunt family, who can you haunt?"

A sort of 'Sins of the Father' thing then? Maybe the town is hiding a containment unit.

 

[billd91]

I'm looking forward to this movie, although cheerleaders for the 2016 movie are trashing this movie as hard as they can trying to ruin it for fans.

Sauce for the goose and all that. If anything, the 2016 movie's team/backers probably have a better case for complaint. Just think of the optics on this sequel - it comes on the heels of a contentious fight and you know that there are critics of the 2016 effort who see it as their white knight charging in to restore the masculine honor of the original Ghostbusting crew and their fans against the tides of encroaching feminine appropriation. Or some such naughty word.

I'm pretty sure that the principals involved don't see it that way considering the support they gave the 2016 project and cameo appearances (though Jason Reitman has made some boneheaded gaffes), but it does seem a bit of a snub. That said, 2016 being a reboot does kind of take it outside the continuity anyway, so it's not like it can't be understood why it isn't referenced.