Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

CB2001

Master Member
So, I just had a thought which formed a question. Seeing that Ghostbusters II was the way it was due to executive meddling, I have to wonder: how is Hollywood gonna screw up the next film? Or even better, how is Hollywood going to interpret this? Are they going to see that it was a good quality story with well developed characters and it made for the fans? Or are they going to read it as, "Oh, they like it because of the kids/family!"? I shutter to think it will be the latter instead of the former.
 

ForbiddenOnion

Active Member
Especially considering Afterlife wasn't super high budget. As much as I would love to see Jason take the center seat again, I am also enamored with the idea of maybe another filmmaker taking the job for the next one. Maybe someone like Edgar Wright or Taika Waititi.

Also... Afterlife was a fantastic, wonderful experience. Whole family teared up. But the best part of the experience was walking into the theater. My girlfriend and I went in our jumpsuits. A mom came up to us with her young son (maybe 8 or 9 years old) hiding behind her leg. She says to us "He's a huge fan and he loves your outfits but now he is convinced there are ghosts in the theater. Will you talk him down?" So we told the little dude that we'd already caught the ghost and the theater was safe. He was still hiding behind his mom's leg (as I probably would've done at his age) but the biggest smile came across his face.
 

Halliwax

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
So, I just had a thought which formed a question. Seeing that Ghostbusters II was the way it was due to executive meddling, I have to wonder: how is Hollywood gonna screw up the next film? Or even better, how is Hollywood going to interpret this? Are they going to see that it was a good quality story with well developed characters and it made for the fans? Or are they going to read it as, "Oh, they like it because of the kids/family!"? I shutter to think it will be the latter instead of the former.
Story telling doesn’t matter anymore. Throw in some retro stuff every 30 seconds, have a version of baby yoda, and just do the same exact 3rd act as the first Film, boom!!! Box office hit!!

;)
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

batguy

Sr Member
Story telling doesn’t matter anymore. Throw in some retro stuff every 30 seconds, have a version of baby yoda, and just do the same exact 3rd act as the first Film, boom!!! Box office hit!!

Maybe the new Ghostbusters will have to take care of an orphaned mini-marshmallow-man next time.
 

masterjedi322

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
We saw it yesterday, and I loved it. We laughed. We cried. Just the right amount of fan service, IMHO. Could have done without the mini-marshmallow men, but I’m sure they were primarily for comic relief and to sell some toys.

Going to be a long year+ wait for that Hasbro pack, but I am super-pumped about it having seen it in context.

Sean
 

nkg

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Well, I saw the new film, and quite enjoyed it.

The thing is, I didn't actually like the original one all that much. I should have - I was geeky and in high school when it came out. But I wasn't interested in these middle-aged old guys (yeah I know they were in their 30s but they seemed old to me!) being kinda jerky and mean, especially to the nerd character. And the effects were super crap, especially the dogs and the compositing. So I didn't go in to this sequel with a ton of nostalgia.

Whereas the new film focused on fantasy wish fulfillment of the kids, who I thought did a great job. The adults were secondary, and that was fine. There was a lot of fan service, and the end was a bit overly sentimental. But it was a good fun film and cheerfully celebrated nerd-dom. Perhaps a couple lines of dialogue were unnecessarily crude given the age demographic, though.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

HMSwolfe

Sr Member
Saw it again, and I think it’s a little unfair to say the only reason someone would like it is nostalgia for the old one. I genuinely liked Phoebe, Podcast, the mom, Gary. The setting was fun, if a little lacking in extras, though maybe that was the point, that it was a “ghost” town. It was just as fun for me the second time.
 

Psab keel

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I found the new characters likeable enough and well cast. I just wanted to know more about them. I was waiting to get scenes where I would learn more, but by the end of the movie I didn't know much more than I did at the beginning. Hopefully they get to dig deeper with them in the next one. I still maintain that opening was pretty impressive and from a prop perspective it delivered in spades.
 

batguy

Sr Member
And the effects were super crap, especially the dogs and the compositing. So I didn't go in to this sequel with a ton of nostalgia.

IMO that's kind of a weird reaction to the movie in 1984. The movie was packed full of SFX (for the time) and the running terror dogs were practically the only shots that looked rough. Even today there still aren't very many other SFX shots to criticize.

BTW the streams from the proton pack/guns were intended to look goofy. Clumsy.
 

Psab keel

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I love the original Ghostbusters. Effects and all. Though what made that movie special was that group of characters and their friendship as much as the quirky concept of ghost exterminators. Without those friendships the movie would have been a flop.
 

Usagi Pilgrim

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I love the original Ghostbusters. Effects and all. Though what made that movie special was that group of characters and their friendship as much as the quirky concept of ghost exterminators. Without those friendships the movie would have been a flop.
I think you're right, but I also think that for the mid-80's, Ramos, Murray, & Akroyd were 3 of the most well known comedy actors. There was a LOT of shorthand that was kind of 'built in' to getting to know these characters, especially Murray.

In modern times, it would be like casting Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, & Jack Black in the original film (not a remake/reboot, but if the original was made today). You pretty much would know a fair amount about the characters before the opening credits because they'd been cast for who they were, as opposed to their acting chops. That's not too disparage the skills of either these 3 actors, or the original 3, but you'd see that poster & have an idea of what you were in for.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Psab keel

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
It wasn't just chemistry though. The 2016 version sucked so bad precisely because its script was so awful, despite having a great cast. They couldn't save that movie, despite each of their individual comedic talents. Some of whom already had chemistry in previous movies together. Just because it worked in one movie doesn't ensure success in the next project if the script is lacking.

You may have sort of known the schtick from the 1984 movie given who was in it, but their casting didn't guarantee that the movie would be a hit. In fact that movie was my introduction to each one of those actors so I had no preconceived notions about any of them, much less any knowledge of their past work. A script has to be good. Period. That's why I don't put stock in a famous name attached to a movie. Good casting doesn't excuse bad writing or a bad concept. Sometime it can improve ideas or dialog, but the initial concept has to have some merit on its own.
 
Last edited:

Ron

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
That's basically where I'm at with Ghostbusters. I love the originals because of Aykroyd, Murray, Ramis, et al. Their comedic styling is what makes the movie in conjunction with great writing. Without them it's no longer Ghostbusters for me. Add to it that Ghostbusters is a movie, like so many others, very much rooted in the time it was made. If Afterlife came out in 1991, I'd be all in.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top