Ghostbusters: Afterlife
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
CB2001
Master Member
Poor writing, or misinterpretation of information presented? Because it seems more like the latter than former.
Not how I feel
CB2001
Master Member
Fair enough.
Halliwax, missed this at the time. They crossed the streams in GB inside the portal on the top of Dana's building to close the gate/undo Gozer's crossover/something like that. The same thing is going on with the wands Egon set up aimed at the "Well of Souls" -- every time the gateway opens enough to trip the PKE sensors, the units fire up crossed streams to shut it down again. Once Gozer's out, the OG trio tries with their three (not all four) on Gozer themself to try to undo the crossover, but their three packs don't have enough oomph -- especially as the crossover has already happened. Maybe if they'd gone down the mine and directed it at the temple or the well? Dunno.
Point is, crossing the streams isn't about taking out ghosts -- even super-powerful creepy bastards like Vigo the Immortal. It's for closing down full-on dimensional crossovers and/or punting an actual deity out of our spacetime.
My take on Gozer getting ripped apart and pulled into multiple traps is that Egon suspected, in '84, and then knew once he saw the dates Shandor carved in the well chamber, that as long as Gozer was out there on the other side, they'd be trying to come across. Only solution is to bring Gozer over on our terms, put them through a spiritual paper shredder, and separate the incarcerated bits. Not ideal, but until we learn how to unmake a god... *shrug* It would've worked the first time, too, but Egon's generators couldn't take the load.
It's not an inconsistency or bad writing. Just that gods/interdimensional entities =/= ghosts. As for Egon being wrong about crossing the streams potentially causing all of reality to blink out, that's on par with fears in the 1930s that splitting the atom would cause a chain reaction that would burn off the planet's atmosphere. Which didn't happen, so...
Point is, crossing the streams isn't about taking out ghosts -- even super-powerful creepy bastards like Vigo the Immortal. It's for closing down full-on dimensional crossovers and/or punting an actual deity out of our spacetime.
My take on Gozer getting ripped apart and pulled into multiple traps is that Egon suspected, in '84, and then knew once he saw the dates Shandor carved in the well chamber, that as long as Gozer was out there on the other side, they'd be trying to come across. Only solution is to bring Gozer over on our terms, put them through a spiritual paper shredder, and separate the incarcerated bits. Not ideal, but until we learn how to unmake a god... *shrug* It would've worked the first time, too, but Egon's generators couldn't take the load.
It's not an inconsistency or bad writing. Just that gods/interdimensional entities =/= ghosts. As for Egon being wrong about crossing the streams potentially causing all of reality to blink out, that's on par with fears in the 1930s that splitting the atom would cause a chain reaction that would burn off the planet's atmosphere. Which didn't happen, so...
Noooooo, I totally get that.. I totally saw the packs crossing the streams to stop the ghosts crawling out
I totally saw the trio cross the streams and her untangle them.. I get that
What I don’t get is I thought that crossing the streams was such a risk the chances of it being successful at that time was beyond belief.. and they all prepared for death
They survived which I always thought was a wicked slim chance.. that’s why then never tried it again
But apparently now you can cross the streams when ever you want? I mean why not? Just make the stuff up as we go that’s how Hollywood works today
The crossing of the streams is the least of my concern with the flick..
I think it's implied that THEORETICALLY, crossing the streams would "be bad", but since it was their last hope, they tried it.
Once it was proven that the result wasn't total destruction, it was realized that it could be used again.
Since all their equipment was basically experimental, results were up in the air until proven. It wasn't that it was guaranteed to be bad Everytime & they just got lucky. It could've been, but was proven to be a safe, viable option if needed.
See I always took it as it worked that one time. That’s the reason why we didn’t see it in gb2
But like others said here they didn’t need to close the gate way in gb2 so it wasn’t used
But now they used to close the gate in afterlife.. and they used it to also lasso good ol’ gozer
So I just gave up on trying to make sense out of it
Lol everyone knows how I feel about it, and don’t want to try and convince anyone not to like it
Just my personal opinion, I’ll never claim I’m right or anyone here is wrong.
I just didn’t like the film
Take all the throw backs out of it, and it’s just a long running movie of coincidences..
I don’t mean to be negative guys, I’ll step back now, I hope I didn’t offend or upset anyone
CB2001
Master Member
I'm sure you didn't offend anyone. And I'm sorry if I was at all rude.
Naw, man, you're fine. Just thought clarification was needed that crossing the streams isn't a ghost-catching tactic, but reserved for bigger stuff. I didn't realize you'd already gotten that. I do like the film, rather a lot. I'm sad it failed to land with you. I'll be the first to admit (actually, I'm too lazy to go back however many pages to check, but I think I'm fifth or sixth) that despite liking the film overall and seeing what it was going for, there were a couple things that I thought weren't executed well.
Among those being Ray, Pete, and Winston crossing the streams at Gozer in the front yard. Something a little more spectacular should have happened -- some distortion of the space around them, since they weren't loosing the energy into an interdimensional void. A little bit more of an effect on Gozer before they regained their footing, grinned, and uncrossed the streams -- perhaps with a bit more effort. Or Ray saying, "See? I told you we should've hit the temple first!"
I am totally not 100% satisfied with it... But I rarely am. There have been very, very few movies I walk away from smiling in satisfaction and saying, "That was perfect."
I just don’t want to be that guy. I remember 2/3 members a few years ago always bringing negativity to a lot of threads. And while I sit back reading my posts I’m saying to myself
Oh boy.. what have I become lol I just don’t want anyone thinking I’m like those guys trying to convince everyone the movie sucked
I just wish we got something else, at first I was wondering if I’m going through some kind of mid life crisis since the last few movies I saw in the theater I didn’t connect with
But I saw spiderman no way home this weekend and loved it, while others are saying there are a bunch of issues with it
So god only knows with me! Lol
Hope everyone has a merry Christmas!
No way, you’re a-ok in my book
*points to my posts in the Book of Boba Fett thread* I have strongly held opinions about a lot of things. Some are easier to slide under the radar. It's when things like that are going on that the way others are doing things slams up against a sense of how they ought to be done -- especially as my take I try to derive from a grounding in storytelling and lore knowledge, where it seems the people making the thing dropped one or more ball on that score.
Afterlife was one that I felt could have spent more time on this and less on that, maybe held off on the fight with Gozer 'til part two -- that sort of thing. One thing I felt got nowhere near enough screen time or discussion was why everyone collectively forgot the events of the first film(s). Two minutes of screen-time to go into how people subconsciously reject what they don't understand, so the people who weren't directly experiencing the events thought it was weird/zany and then forgot about it. And then there's the psychology of New Yorkers. If the film went there and someone on the street old enough to remember was asked about the time the Statue of Liberty walked up to Midtown, they'd go, "Oh, yeahhh...! Man, that was a night, huh?" And then go back to unloading their delivery truck or whatever.
I like that we got at least a moment of Gary expressing amazement they didn't know, and the kids being all, "Um, that was twenty years before we were even born..." There are people graduating college who were born after 9/11. Who, if they hear about it at all, was some obscure and abstract thing that happened in the same "before-time" as Pearl Harbor and the Roman Empire. It doesn't impact them. They didn't know the World Trade Center. I've watched movies with kids recently, and they don't notice the towers in establishing shots of the New York skyline. It doesn't register as a thing that was there and is now not, unless something calls their attention to it. Even younger New Yorkers walk past the new plaza and don't bat an eye at the memorial, because it didn't happen to them. It needed to be mentioned -- at least in connection with Callie. The actress was born in '81. I don't know how old the character's supposed to be, but any wiggle room should be younger -- it seems she hasn't had an easy time of it lately, and that tends to age one.
But if it is supposed to be approximately the same age, that means Egon had to have had her sometime prior to the events of the original film. If that's bumped out to sometime after the second film, that starts to beg the question of why they didn't get a younger actress to play a 30-year-old instead of a 40-year-old. Maybe Egon got involved with someone between 1 and 2 and that's why Janine isn't after him the way she was in the first film? And that also means, if Callie is about the same age as Carrie, that, while she would've been too young to remember the events of '84, she'd probably remember the events of '89, especially if her dad was involved.
All of that's the biggest missing for me, that, if addressed, would have definitely carried this story across two films -- set-up and delivery. The slow burn of much of Afterlife would have given us, through getting to know these characters and what happened to them, what happened after GB, GB2, and GB:TVG (yes, I still include it) -- bring us up to date over the last thirty years of that universe.
Different people engage with different things in different ways. Whatever it was about Afterlife that landed with others, failed to with you. It's not even binary. There were things you liked about it, but the balance fell to "wasted potential" for you. There were things I didn't like about it, but for me the balance fell to "worthy successor and -- hopefully -- set-up". Shades of gray. It could have been nothing but wall-to-wall 'member-berries... but as much of a nostalgia-fest as it was, it felt more like a love letter to the originals than a cash grab (looking at you, other properties whom I won't name), and even if they fell short, they tried for something more than an empty roller-coaster ride that honored the source material. I absolutely get why you were disappointed with it.
My only hope is that the continuation of this story answers some of the questions and problems this one raised. If they get left hanging or are resolved badly, I'll be right there with you. If it adds context and alters the implications of one or another scene in Afterlife, I'm hoping it impacts your takeaway from the film. We'll see. But for now, no, you aren't getting "too old" for this, it's not a midlife crisis -- it's just Hollywood's creative bankruptcy struggling with the people there who are still desperately trying. Some gems slip out. Many more, you can tell they tried, but got drowned out by The Machine, and some you can tell they didn't even try.
Lightning
Master Member
I'm glad they hung a lantern on Podcast not knowing about it, but I still can't figure out how that could possibly be the case.
He's coming off a recent divorce, Janine doesn't know that in GB1, and he neither dissuades her or returns her advances. Between films he realizes he doesn't have the time/temperament for romantic relationships so he tells Janine directly that she should look elsewhere.
Riceball
Master Member
It's entirely possible that they did write and film more explanation but it wounded up on the cutting room floor due to either the running time of the film going long and needed trimming or it was felt that all that extra exposition was unnecessary and just slowed down the pace of the film. There's only so much exposition you can add before it just becomes information overload or slows things down unnecessarily. Plus, a lot of times, deeper explanations of things are unnecessary, the only important thing to know is that it happened or happens, knowing why is just not that important to the plot. But I'm sure that a lengthier explanation likely exists in the novelization if there is one.
Lightning
Master Member
The thing is, they HAVE to have the Original Ghostbusters attempt to cross the streams at Gozer. As evidenced by the questions in this very thread not everyone gets the mechanics of what crossing the streams in the first movie did. If they didn't try and fail, there would be a million posts online saying some variation of "Why the complicated trap? Couldn't they just cross the streams? It worked in the first movie."
Last edited:
Gizmodo: Miss Ghostbusters: Afterlife In Theaters? It's Coming Home Soon.
gizmodo.com
Miss Ghostbusters: Afterlife In Theaters? It's Coming Home Soon
Jason Reitman's Ghostbusters sequel will hit digital on January 4, and Blu-ray and 4K February 1.
gizmodo.com
i remember when it took forever to get things on VHS... seemed it like it was over a year to get jurassic park when i was a kidGizmodo: Miss Ghostbusters: Afterlife In Theaters? It's Coming Home Soon.
Miss Ghostbusters: Afterlife In Theaters? It's Coming Home Soon
Jason Reitman's Ghostbusters sequel will hit digital on January 4, and Blu-ray and 4K February 1.
Yeah. Even with multiple machines, the companies could only record so many tapes off of the master at a time, and even with fast-spooling machines, it still takes time to go through all that tape. DVDs and BluRays you can burn thousands at a time in seconds. You can theoretically have the movie in stores before it's in theaters, as opposed to VHS where it took a year to build up inventory to ship. Most of the cost and time for discs is tied up in the packaging (I still wish DVDs hadn't stopped using CD-style jewel cases -- and, further, that BlueRay tech was used to put full albums on mini-discs instead of CDs). Back in the '90s, I had to special order Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead on VHS through Suncoast for a hundred dollars. Too niche. Wasn't on shelves anywhere. The company made and sent out the video tapes on-demand only. Now I have the all-the-bells-and-whistles anniversary edition on BluRay new for ten bucks.
never really thought of the mechanics behind it slowing it down
crazy, totally makes sense
