• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

New Ghostbusters Afterlife trailer

embee

Lawyer by day. Rules lawyer by night.
I think reboots can have plenty of merit, when they improve on the original in some way, or help introduce an old franchise to a new audience.
Thank you for literally articulating Ivan Reitman's own reason for Ghostbusters (2016);

REITMAN: Well, I’d like to go forward and make new things. I think Ghostbusters probably should be remade, if we can get it all right. We’re working on it, so we’ll see.

Source: Ivan Reitman and Lauren Shuler Donner DAVE Blu-ray Interview

Let's also be honest that a lot of franchises are one good movie and then a series of terrible movies.

The Jurassic Park franchise is one of the poster children of this. Jaws is another. I think we would all do well to not mythologize the greatness of "franchises" when, in reality, taken as a whole, they are all too often mediocre with focused areas of greatness.

Star Wars - I'm looking at you:

Ep1 - a terrible movie,
Ep2 - a even more terrible movie,
Ep3 - a terrible movie that had a decent part,
Solo - a waste of a movie that didn't know what it wanted to do
Rogue One - a decent movie that depends on intertextuality,
Star Wars - a hokey movie that shouldn't work but somehow managed to be a masterpiece
ESB - a very good movie that is the middle part of an overarching story
ROTJ - a solid movie that tied up a lot of loose ends but raised its own issues
Ep 7 - a forgettable reboot of SW that had a couple of bright spots
Ep8 - a deeply schizophrenic movie that had some very good spots, some dismal spots, and a lot of forgettable mediocrity
Ep 9 - a movie without its own internal reason to exist

Alien(s) is yet another, with a steady decline in quality with each additional movie. Many of the Disney Renaissance animated movies went down this route, as did all of the monster movies, kaiju movies, and much of JJ Abrams' filmography (see above).

When one allows their enjoyment of one movie to shade their feelings of subsequent movies that depend on that movie, it lionizes and villifies movies that don't deserve that treatment.

Ghostbusters (1984) is a legendary film that is rightly regarded as one of the greatest movie comedies. Ghostbusters (2016) suffered from a variety of factors. The original drivers of Ghostbusters (1984) were among those factors. Reitman had been a driver of rebooting the original. Murray didn't want anything to do with it for much of the time. Ackroyd had been more than willing to keep mining the IP. Feig came into it when Reitman decided to leave. His writing partner had already written a previous script and had a good working history with McCarthy, who herself had a long good working history with the other female leads, all of whom are some of the finest comic actors around.

Ghostbusters (2106) has some fantastic moments. Kevin's interview is one of them. McKinnon's performance was similarly fantastic. And I am genuinely of the opinion that the movie is no worse than Ghostbusters 2. So to say that it's somehow not worthy of the Ghostbusters brand name is a bit disingenuous.

As to Afterlife, as stated, it's a nice looking trailer. I'm curious as to why it's Reitman's kid directing the movie and not Ivan Reitman himself.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




TheSword

Legend
I was genuinely surprised that Paul Feig directed the Ghostbusters reboot. I find it hard to reconcile that so similar a cast and production to Bridesmaids (a film so funny even my dad laughs at it, that hits every punchline expertly) delivered something that missed every single punchline. I wanted to love it, because I love Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig. But I just couldn’t. Sorry. I think it was a comedy that wasn’t funny. I don’t know why 🤷🏻‍♂️

Looking forward to afterlife though.
 

payn

Hero
Lot of folks mad that Afterlife doesnt appear to be a comedy. I think its brilliant (from the trailer). One of the big mistakes of reboots is trying to emulate too close to the source material. Honor the original elements, but do something fresh and different with them. Get out from under the derivative trap and deliver a new experience with a familiar face.
 

MGibster

Legend
Let's also be honest that a lot of franchises are one good movie and then a series of terrible movies.
Pirates of the Caribbean's ears must be burning!

Alien(s) is yet another, with a steady decline in quality with each additional movie. Many of the Disney Renaissance animated movies went down this route, as did all of the monster movies, kaiju movies, and much of JJ Abrams' filmography (see above).
Well, with a steady decline in quality with each movie after the second. While I personally believe Alien to be superior to Aliens, the sequel is so good I can understand those who think it's better than the original.

I was genuinely surprised that Paul Feig directed the Ghostbusters reboot. I find it hard to reconcile that so similar a cast and production to Bridesmaids (a film so funny even my dad laughs at it, that hits every punchline expertly) delivered something that missed every single punchline. I wanted to love it, because I love Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig. But I just couldn’t. Sorry. I think it was a comedy that wasn’t funny. I don’t know why
I sometimes wonder at what point in the production of a movie do the actors, producers, and others think they have a hit or dud on their hands? Mark Hamil has said that they all thought Star Wars was going to be a turkey while they were filming it and were genuinely surprised by its success.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
It's a popular opinion that sequels are inferior to their original movies, but there are plenty of exceptions (Wrath of Khan, Empire Strikes Back, Fury Road, and The Winter Soldier are the first that come to mind, but I'm sure I could think of more.)

Ghostbusters II, not so much...
 

Lot of folks mad that Afterlife doesnt appear to be a comedy. I think its brilliant (from the trailer). One of the big mistakes of reboots is trying to emulate too close to the source material. Honor the original elements, but do something fresh and different with them. Get out from under the derivative trap and deliver a new experience with a familiar face.
I think with Paul Rudd, there will still be plenty of humor. But the trailer does make it seem they are leaning more towards a serious tone, which I have no problems with.
 

Gradine

Final Form (they/them)
While none of them quite reach the level of "good", I recently watched all of the Twilight movies as a lark with my partner and generally speaking they improved in quality each time. Michael Sheen vamping about chewing scenery will improve any production, though
 

wicked cool

Adventurer
I like how people that think the reboot was awful get thrown into a bucket . I blame the scripts. Sigourney weaver didn’t lose the ability to act it was bad scripts. The alien franchise became the Prometheus movies due to 1 mans flawed vision. Great actors in all but nobody was interested long term in this
There are plenty of exceptions to second movies being just as good or reboots
Empire strikes back is one of the best sequels-its after that it lost its way for the most part. Heck it’s the thrawn books that carried the franchise for years
Godfather 2-many consider to be better than original
Spider-Man reboots-I find them to be better than most of the originals
Batman-it’s debateable
Star Trek vs new generation-strong debates

90210-reboot crashed and burned . There was no sexism in the reboot. It was just terrible

Terminator 2-another great sequel
 

embee

Lawyer by day. Rules lawyer by night.
I sometimes wonder at what point in the production of a movie do the actors, producers, and others think they have a hit or dud on their hands? Mark Hamil has said that they all thought Star Wars was going to be a turkey while they were filming it and were genuinely surprised by its success.
Everyone was surprised by its success. Guiness called it a stupid and childish fairy tale (which it ultimately is - farmboy saves princess from the clutches of an evil warlord with the help of a wizard and a pirate).

The stupidest thing ever uttered by a movie executive was "Sure Mr. Lucas... You can keep the merchandising rights and soundtrack royalties." Which is why I side-eye any hate laid at the Ewoks and porgs as a ploy to sell merch; they were no more a ploy to sell merch than were the Jawas.

Other fits of financial brilliance were from Sir Alec Guiness (or more likely his agent), who opted instead of a negotiated salary to take .025% of ESB's revenues. His estate continues to collect money from it and his take from that movie alone is more than $100 million.

For less than 60 seconds of screen time.
 

BrokenTwin

Adventurer
Enjoyed the original, loved the cartoon, was solidly "meh" on the reboot...
Afterlife looks like a pure nostalgia-bait paint-by-numbers popcorn flick. I'll probably watch it once it hits Disney+ or Netflix or where-ever. For Paul Rudd if nothing else.
Be nice if they tied a bit of the reboot in just for the nod, but I'm not holding my breath. A Kate McKinnon cameo would be solid. I found her easily the best part of the reboot, though Chris Hemsworth's ditzy secretary routine was entertaining in its own way.
 


Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
The stupidest thing ever uttered by a movie executive was "Sure Mr. Lucas... You can keep the merchandising rights and soundtrack royalties." Which is why I side-eye any hate laid at the Ewoks and porgs as a ploy to sell merch; they were no more a ploy to sell merch than were the Jawas.
really? The Jawas kind of miss out the cute factor though, I dont remember anyone kid wanting a cuddly stuffed Jawa to sleep with. Ewoks and Porgs and Banthas however are a winner
 

really? The Jawas kind of miss out the cute factor though, I dont remember anyone kid wanting a cuddly stuffed Jawa to sleep with. Ewoks and Porgs and Banthas however are a winner
 


So to say that it's somehow not worthy of the Ghostbusters brand name is a bit disingenuous.
I never said it wasn't worthy of the brand name. I said they gave it the exact same title as the 80s original, to deliberately confuse the audience.

Which they did.

Re. Ghostbusters 2. Ghostbusters II is a good movie overall that just happens to have a bad first act.

I can see more problems with it than just the weak first act. With a sequel, you often hope that they either advance the story in some interesting way, or go bigger than the first movie. GBII did neither. They reset the business as if they hadn't saved the world, and then repeat much of the same plot, but with a weaker villain and Dana miraculously being in the middle of it all again. And I can see how the ending is a bit cringe too.

But amongst the flaws, I also see some greatness. Janosh is hilarious, Venkman gets a lot of great lines, and Winston has a lot more to do and say. The river of slime in the old pneumatic transit is a cool and haunting idea, and Vigo is genuinly creepy.
 
Last edited:

embee

Lawyer by day. Rules lawyer by night.
really? The Jawas kind of miss out the cute factor though, I dont remember anyone kid wanting a cuddly stuffed Jawa to sleep with. Ewoks and Porgs and Banthas however are a winner
They were one of the original Kenner action figures. In fact, they were in the initial batch of 12 released in 1977.

They were marketing.
 

Gradine

Final Form (they/them)
I never said it wasn't worthy of the brand name. I said they gave it the exact same title as the 80s original, to deliberately confuse the audience.

Which they did.
The film's marketing was very, very up-front about what type of movie it was going to be, and the movie turned out to be... exactly that.

No one was maliciously misleading anyone, and I can't imagine what sort of person would walk into that movie expecting anything different than what the movie turned out to be.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top