New Ghostbusters Afterlife trailer

[Grendel_Khan]

But here's the thing... the first movie was enjoyed by kids for whom ghosts and monsters were scary, the super natural was scary, and the boogey man was still hiding in their closet... and here's this gang of schlub who show you that with enough knowledge and know-how, anyone can face the Darkness and put a stop to it. That impact was important to a whole generation... And that angle was kept for the long running The Real Ghostbusters cartoon. We don't hear it mention much, but that show, and its toyline, did FAR more to crystallize the Ghostbusters in the public consciousness than the repetitive sequel. Hurray for J Michael Stracinsky (spelling?) I guess.

This movie, to me, speaks far more to what the kids who saw Ghostbusters in the 80s took away from the movie than what Akroyd and Murray did.

I hear you, and I was one of those kids whose mind was blown when the movie came out, and who became way more invested in the cartoon, in part because it was so much heavier on the action than the movies (and also there was just so much more to watch). The Bogeyman episode, the one where Egon suits up and goes into the ghost tank, the one with Cthulhu...scorched into my brain. When I think of Egon, I think of him with that ridiculous blonde pompadour before I think of Harold Ramis. So watching this trailer I got the same sort of tingles you're describing.

But fan-service, especially a very specific metatextual version of fan-service like that, where it's about whether you watched or read or played this tie-in project or another, always winds up feeling hollow to me. I'd rather a movie swing for the fences than settle for a safe single. We have way too many of the latter (staring at endless churn of MCU stuff). This movie looks tropey and recycled as hell, like most fan-service is. Meanwhile, the original Ghostbusters and countless other classics became classics because they were just so damn weird.

However, I fully agree about the idea of a Ghostbusters franchise premise, especially if it was all just scams and Ghost Hunter-style reality nonsense (since part of the setting for the movies, as opposed to the cartoon, was that paranormal stuff spikes very occasionally, but is usually non-existent).

 

[embee]

Original as in, so terrible it made you want to scratch out your own eyeballs. Calling it a comedy is debatable, since that would require writing jokes.

I'm relieved this is as far away removed from Fieg's abysmal attempt at a reboot. It was an abomination that does not deserve the Ghostbusters name. Plus, allow me to express by hatred for any movie stealing the exact title as an iconic movie, and wearing its skin to fool people into watching it.

This looks fun. Yes, it seems to indulge heavily in the mythology of the original film, but that is I think what most fans want to see. There is a lot about Ivo Shandor that was explored in the GB Videogame, which really felt like GB3. This movie seems to be doing more of that.

While Feig's Ghostbusters wasn't nearly on par with the original, it most certainly holds its own against Ghostbusters II, which, if we're being honest, was fairly mediocre. In fact, I'd say that Chris Hemsworth's interview scene was funnier than any single part of GB2 and cemented his status as a gifted comic actor.

My opinion on this... eh. It's a trailer. For a long-delayed movie. That depends on, in no small part, intertextuality. I've seen plenty of good looking trailers for absolutely terrible movies. And even more good looking trailers for merely adequate movies.

 

[Gradine]

I liked the Paul Fieg reboot. It wasn't game-changing or anything, but it never deserved the vitriol that was thrown its way. Kate McKinnon in particular stole every scene she was in.

Of course, Ghostbusters II was awful and the first movie, while it was game-changing, doesn't always hold up as well. Such is the nature of comedy, though.

This one looks pretty good so far; Paul Rudd is always a treat. I hate that it represents (whether intentionally or not) a repudiation of the 2016 film. This film seems to be tacking towards a more balanced cast, which could do a lot to ease that tension. I'd hate for the misogynistic manbaby crowd to think they're taking a W on this one

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The idea that human minds filter out weirdness and replace it with mundanity has been used in Dr Who and other stories for years.

Dr. Who is so schizophrenic about this stuff. Sometimes no one knows about aliens, etc., sometimes there are government agencies that know about it and all the heads of state know about it, sometimes everyone knows about it. Even within a single showrunner's era, they can't seem to keep it straight.

It certainly feels like the BBC doesn't have some single office in charge of the brand and whoever is the current showrunners gets to do whatever they like (witness the years it took to bring back Gallifrey which was then immediately destroyed again just recently).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Kate McKinnon in particular stole every scene she was in.

I would go so far as to say she's the best character in any of the movies. Completely wild and crazy in ways that only Murray approached and without the somewhat problematic behavior Venkman displays in the original movie. (Dana would have gotten a restraining order on him -- and probably Louis as well -- nowadays.)

 

[payn]

The Fieg reboot was on the other day and I watched the second half again. It helped formed my ideas around why I didn't like it (why I dont like Fieg movies in general.)

The original movie had these intellectual outcasts trying to prove their theories. Most folks treated them like crackpots, because they seemed like it. Though, shortly later they prove that ghosts exist and save the city. They end as heroes of NYC that everybody loves them.

In Feig's ghostbusters you have these outcast intellectuals that folks simply dont like. Their crackpot ideas is only another layer of the hate cake. Even after they prove ghosts exist, folks still hate them. They save the city and folks still want to bury them.

Feig's humor has a brand like the Fharely brothers. Its usually a meanspirited punching down of a bumbling idiot(s) that nobody likes who somehow manages to fail forward and save the day. Fieg's characters are the butt of every joke start to finish.

That said, I loved the cast of Feig's reboot and all the characters. The jokes just felt beat to death and of course the Fieg formula made it a hard film to like despite having some things going for it.

 

[Tonguez]

That said, I loved the cast of Feig's reboot and all the characters. The jokes just felt beat to death and of course the Fieg formula made it a hard film to like despite having some things going for it.

when you say all the characters you're including Leslie Jones and Melissa McCarthy? to each his own

I really don't like the type that Jones portrays in all?/most of her characters and I think that, along with what you said about Feigs approach is largely what dragged the whole thing down for me.

 

[Imaculata]

Payn pretty much sums it up.

Say what you want about Afterlife, but it looks like they at least know what the original film was about. Whether you like the angle of expanding on the Shandor mythos or not, they at least know who Shandor is. I feel Rudd is the right actor to carry this film. I just hope the story is good, and that the rest of the cast has good chemistry. Fan service is fun in moderation, but it cannot carry an entire film. I hope the movie itself is not that shallow.

 

[Imaculata]

Ugh. I guess that in the canonical Ghostbusters universe, it's a small world after all.

Judging by the trailer, they might also be paying hommage to the cartoon and the toys. I don't know if the cartoons are considered canon, but I hope they are. Because as mentioned, they expanded the lore of GB in all directions.

Also, in case you missed this:

You think they kept Bill Murray to a script? Aykroyd, Ramis, Murray, and Moranis all got their starts in IMPROV comedy - Saturday Night Live and SCTV - not scripted comedy.

The original GB seems pretty tightly scripted. As far as I know, there was a lot of adlibbing by especially Murray. But they only kept whatever they thought was the best take, and they didn't let improv fill unscripted scenes, nor let characters ramble on and on.

For example, a few years ago Reitman shared a few outtakes from the scene where Venkman confronts Peck in the mayor's office. He showed takes, in which Murray always stuck to the script, but adlibbed one or two words. There was one take that was arguably even better than the one they ended up using in the film, which had a crowd of fans in stitches, but I think it was written, not adlibbed. I'll see if I can find it.

Found the clip:


There were other takes where Murray mostly improvised his actions, like with Venkman's awkward initial visit to Dana's apartment. Weaver improvised the word "gameshow host", instead of what was in the script. But again, tightly scripted jokes and good writing.

I think improv comedy can only get you so far. For a movie, I don't think it is enough to just have characters ramble. Good comedy scenes don't write themselves, and not all improv is guaranteed to be good improv.

 

[trappedslider]

Judging by the trailer, they might also be paying hommage to the cartoon and the toys. I don't know if the cartoons are considered canon, but I hope they are. Because as mentioned, they expanded the lore of GB in all directions.


The original GB seems pretty tightly scripted. As far as I know, there was a lot of adlibbing by especially Murray. But they only kept whatever they thought was the best take, and they didn't let improv fill unscripted scenes, nor let characters ramble on and on.

For example, a few years ago Reitman shared a few outtakes from the scene where Venkman confronts Peck in the mayor's office. He showed takes, in which Murray always stuck to the script, but adlibbed one or two words. There was one take that was arguably even better than the one they ended up using in the film, which had a crowd of fans in stitches, but I think it was written, not adlibbed. I'll see if I can find it.

Found the clip:


There were other takes where Murray mostly improvised his actions, like with Venkman's awkward initial visit to Dana's apartment. Weaver improvised the word "gameshow host", instead of what was in the script. But again, tightly scripted jokes and good writing.

I think improv comedy can only get you so far. For a movie, I don't think it is enough to just have characters ramble. Good comedy scenes don't write themselves, and not all improv is guaranteed to be good improv.

one of the DVDs out there has a trivia track in which it points out the differences between what you see and the actual script along with other bits of info. Like with the "let's run some red lights" they did a number of different lines, the script for Weaver was supposed to have been "used car salesman"