New Ghostbusters Afterlife trailer

[Tonguez]

I agree with you on this.

However, in the interest of fairness I feel compelled to point out that Reitman and Ramis kind of did something similar. They bought the name from Filmation who were already using it for a completely unrelated TV show. They didn't try to pass it off as the same thing like Feig did, but like Feig they did confusingly use the name of an unrelated franchise.

Kinda, the 70’s live action ghostbusters lasted one season and was defunct by 1984 when Reitman and Ramis came up with their idea and bought the name to stave off being sued. The two cartoons that followed both leveraged the success of the 1984 movie Not the orignal 70’s show - but only one was the Real Ghostbusters (despite not being the original ghostbuster )

 

[Imaculata]

EDIT: Tonguez beat me to it!

Well, that was very different of course. Sometimes a name is still in use. No one would ever associate the name Ghostbusters with that old tv show, about two men and a gorilla. But since they didn't have the rights, they bought them.

Filmation then immediately made a cartoon with that name to capatilize on the success of the movie and deliberately confuse the audience, forcing them to call the GB cartoon The REAL Ghostbusters. It was pretty low what Filmation did imo. Not illegal, but they deliberately tried to confuse the audience, and made a bunch of toys so parents might buy the wrong Ghostbusters toys.

While shooting the movie, Reitman did multiple takes of any scene where the name Ghostbusters was said or shown, with alternative names. That was in case they couldn't secure the rights.

 

[Imaculata]

I remember being sick once and watching Ghostbusters II on repeat. I enjoyed it at the time but haven’t seen it since. I did show the original to my girls a few years back and felt it had aged somewhat.

The demon dogs were scary, but I actually think the evil dude in the painting was scarier. I recall being deliciously spooked by the ghost train in the old subway tunnel as well.

I also remember the animated Statue of Liberty fondly.

I saw Ghostbusters II in the theater as a kid, and it left a big impression on me. The winking painting and the severed heads in the subway, are pretty scary for a kid. The special effects were also mind blowing, and the same chemistry between the actors is still there. As an adult, I really love the scene where the team visits Dana's appartment. It is just full of hilarious dialog. But as a kid, the courthouse battle blew me away. GB2 is a big step up in visual effects from GB1 (which was rushed, which is why some effects seem a bit rough around the edges).

It however suffers from sequelisys: it is a derivitive of the original, following much of the same plot beats. And the stakes aren't as high: the ghost of an ancient sorcerer trapped in a painting, versus godlike being about to end the world.

But I feel there is enough to like. Which is why GB is an enjoyable watch for me.

"I used to have part of a slinky. But I straightened it."

 

[embee]

I don't know, in 1984 this guy was kind of scary.
View attachment 141379

One of the things I like about Ghostbusters as an adult is that they really played it straight. For the most part, the ghosts aren't funny or silly with the comedy mostly stemming from how the characters react to the situations they find themselves in. Even Slimer, or the ghost we would eventually call Slimer, isn't cute or funny. He's a disgusting little blob and what makes his initial appearance so funny is Murray's deadpan line, "He slimed me." Ghostbusters is one of the few big budget special effects movies I can think of that just has fantastic dialogue.

Ghostbuster II was a disappointment. I didn't see the more recent reboot because I consider the original to be a near perfect movie. I also didn't see the remake of Psycho. I'm not sure how keen I am about seeing Afterlife in theaters but I'll probably try to catch it at some point. It looks better than Ghostbusters II.

To be fair, the "remake" of Psycho (I assume you're speaking of the Gus Van Sant remake) was rightly panned as a shot-for-shot reshooting of the original with different actors, using identical direction and beats, with the main difference being that it was in color. In fact, Van Sant later said that he only did it to f**k with people. So the only point of that remake was some meta-commentary chazerai that served only to troll people.

Now, say what you will about rebooting IPs for "cash grabs," at least a "cash grab" motivation is an honest motive that is true to the reason that Hollywood movies exist.

Yes, Virginia... Hollywood movies are investment vehicles that are made in the hopes of generating profit for the investors and studios involved. Any artistic value to such work is ancillary to the movie's primary raison d-etre. I acknowledge the cynicism of this view as well as the fact that many of the folk involved make movies because of a love of the craft, but, the fact remains, that the movie itself would not be made but for the hope of profit.

As such, the Ghostbusters reboot is, from this point of view, about as good as Ghostbusters 2 and, financially speaking, was a moderately successful endeavor.

1	Ghostbusters	$229,242,989	1,506	$13,578,151	1,339	Jun 8, 1984	Columbia Pictures
2	Ghostbusters	$128,350,574	3,963	$46,018,755	3,963	Jul 15, 2016	Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE)
3	Ghostbusters II	$112,494,738	2,410	$29,472,894	2,410	Jun 16, 1989	Columbia Pictures
4	Ghostbusters 1985 Re-release	$9,389,135	990	$2,085,116	990	Aug 23, 1985	Columbia Pictures
5	Ghostbusters 30th Anniversary Release	$3,580,343	784	$1,756,513	784	Aug 29, 2014	Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE)

 

[Imaculata]

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.

Jurassic World continues the plot established in Jurassic Park, but takes a new angle on the formula. What if the park wasn't a failure, and was actually in operation?

Likewise, the new Jumanji movies acknowledge the original, but now take the concept into a videogame instead of a boardgame.

But then you also have movies such as The Thing (2011), an unnecessary reboot/prequel to John Carpenters classic The Thing from 1982, with some how worse effects. How those terrible effects came to be, is a whole story on its own. But the fact that they named it exactly the same as John Carpenter's classic, requires a special level of insincerity.

Likewise with the Robocop reboot, which although it changes the story, still leans heavily on the classic whose skin it is wearing.

I appreciate that Ghostbusters Afterlife is honest about being a different movie from the original. The title itself even implies a reboot that takes place in the same continuety.

 

[Morrus]

I appreciate that Ghostbusters Afterlife is honest about being a different movie from the original. The title itself even implies a reboot that takes place in the same continuety.

It's a sequel, not a reboot.

 

[MGibster]

Yes, Virginia... Hollywood movies are investment vehicles that are made in the hopes of generating profit for the investors and studios involved. Any artistic value to such work is ancillary to the movie's primary raison d-etre. I acknowledge the cynicism of this view as well as the fact that many of the folk involved make movies because of a love of the craft, but, the fact remains, that the movie itself would not be made but for the hope of profit.

And I've got no objection to that. Like all movies, I'm sure the remake was intended to make money but I bet everyone involved wanted to make a good movie. I haven't seen it so I can't comment on whether they succeeded or not. Most people I know who watched it said it was enjoyable at least.

But then you also have movies such as The Thing (2011), an unnecessary reboot/prequel to John Carpenters classic The Thing from 1982, with some how worse effects. How those terrible effects came to be, is a whole story on its own. But the fact that they named it exactly the same as John Carpenter's classic, requires a special level of insincerity.

That was another movie I had no interest in seeing as it simply looked like a rehash of the original. And you're right, the special effects debacle is a whole story of its own and likely more entertaining than the movie.

It's a sequel, not a reboot.

And that's why I'm more open to Afterlife than I was to the Ghostbusters reboot. I've had 32 years to get over the disappointment of Ghostbusters 2 and I feel as though I'm finally ready to move on.

 

[Imaculata]

It's a sequel, not a reboot.

I'd argue it's a bit of both. It is a sequel, in the sense that it follows the continuity of the original two films. But it is a reboot, because it is introducing a whole new cast of main characters.

So.... soft reboot? Requel?

 

[Undrave]

To be fair, the "remake" of Psycho (I assume you're speaking of the Gus Van Sant remake) was rightly panned as a shot-for-shot reshooting of the original with different actors, using identical direction and beats, with the main difference being that it was in color. In fact, Van Sant later said that he only did it to f**k with people. So the only point of that remake was some meta-commentary chazerai that served only to troll people.

I briefly studied Danish cinema in a 'World Cinema Class' and that movie was pretty in character for Gus Van Sant. He seems to be quite the character!

 

[Undrave]

I'd argue it's a bit of both. It is a sequel, in the sense that it follows the continuity of the original two films. But it is a reboot, because it is introducing a whole new cast of main characters.

So.... soft reboot? Requel?

A 'passing of the torch' sequel?