HMSwolfe
Master Member
I knew it would be Neil
Ghostbusters: Afterlife
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
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.
Sony seems to have learned from getting stung by GB'16 and seeing how they've handled the Spidey co-operation with Marvel. I have a feeling they'll be more likely to be more hands-off as long as Ivan and Jason and Dan keep making them money.
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.
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.
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!!
Lol I’d watch it!
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
Going to be a long year+ wait for that Hasbro pack, but I am super-pumped about it having seen it in context.
Sean
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.
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.
HMSwolfe
Master 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
First film I've seen in the cinema in a while and it was absolutely worth it. Loved the film.
Yeah, it has a few things that bugged me (some of them bugged me quite a bit!) but it's difficult to discuss without dropping spoilers. The ending was good in principle (and my better half is still taking the piss out of me for crying - in a tough, manly, "must be some dust in my eye" kind of way, obviously - even though she was blubbing like a water fountain!) but I was left with the feeling that they under-utilised the older assets on hand and laid it on waaaaay too thick with the final character reveal. It went from "OMG!" to "yeah, that's still cool" to "is this still happening?" Less can be more, people.
The characters were great and I thought the actors did a fantastic job, especially the two main child actors. Phoebe could have carried the film on her own. "Podcast" was at the most risk of becoming the Jar Jar Binks of the film but managed to stay likeable and engaging throughout, with a lot of credit for that going to the actor.
I liked the idea that Spengler would have thrown himself into researching IS to see if he had left any other nasty little treats in store. Considering how much effort we put into investigating which quarries were used for Stonehenge and the Pyramids, investigating the mine IS used for the '84 Tower of Eeeeevil is logical and consistent with a real-world approach. We also know that plenty of towns sprung up around a single industry and withered away into ghost towns when that industry stopped. I thought it was a clever setting overall that (i) made sense both "in-universe" and in reality, and (ii) must have saved the production a small fortune compared to making a film in the city with a ton of extras.
Although there was a bit of a feeling of repeating parts of the original film... that does actually make a lot of sense. The same bad guy is trying to get back into the world, it's going to need to happen in the same way, so we'll see similar steps happening.
I've heard people say it's a rehash of the original film. It's not. It's a logical continuation of the same story.
Yeah, it has a few things that bugged me (some of them bugged me quite a bit!) but it's difficult to discuss without dropping spoilers. The ending was good in principle (and my better half is still taking the piss out of me for crying - in a tough, manly, "must be some dust in my eye" kind of way, obviously - even though she was blubbing like a water fountain!) but I was left with the feeling that they under-utilised the older assets on hand and laid it on waaaaay too thick with the final character reveal. It went from "OMG!" to "yeah, that's still cool" to "is this still happening?" Less can be more, people.
The characters were great and I thought the actors did a fantastic job, especially the two main child actors. Phoebe could have carried the film on her own. "Podcast" was at the most risk of becoming the Jar Jar Binks of the film but managed to stay likeable and engaging throughout, with a lot of credit for that going to the actor.
I liked the idea that Spengler would have thrown himself into researching IS to see if he had left any other nasty little treats in store. Considering how much effort we put into investigating which quarries were used for Stonehenge and the Pyramids, investigating the mine IS used for the '84 Tower of Eeeeevil is logical and consistent with a real-world approach. We also know that plenty of towns sprung up around a single industry and withered away into ghost towns when that industry stopped. I thought it was a clever setting overall that (i) made sense both "in-universe" and in reality, and (ii) must have saved the production a small fortune compared to making a film in the city with a ton of extras.
Although there was a bit of a feeling of repeating parts of the original film... that does actually make a lot of sense. The same bad guy is trying to get back into the world, it's going to need to happen in the same way, so we'll see similar steps happening.
I've heard people say it's a rehash of the original film. It's not. It's a logical continuation of the same story.
If you visit a thread for a movie you don't want spoiled, then you do so at your own risk. Asking others to hide the discussion seems absurd to me so going forward, as a general rule, if a movie has already been released I'm not going to bother using spoiler tags anymore.
I still contend that Shandor should have been the main antagonist. He has enough of a presence and history tied with the original movie to feel like a natural continuation without having to bring back Gozer. Even if Shador's goal was to summon Gozer at least it would have added some new layer to the threat. That was the point where I was rolling my eyes because it just felt like a cop out. Having the old team reunited to literally fight the same exact battle on a smaller scale is where it just felt lazy to me. Just from a writing perspective it was frustrating because they'd set up an interesting premise with Egon's estranged family and a possible new threat, so to have to revert back to an old one was just tiresome.
The idea of having Shandor's body preserved and in suspended animation was weird, but showed potential. His backstory from the original film actually lent that movie a sense of mystery and dread they could have easily capitalized on. Especially when you consider the opening sequence from Afterlife which I thought set the stage for something really spectacular. By the time Olivia Wilde showed up it kind of felt like a parody to me. So in another 10 years will Gozer show up AGAIN? I mean it's like the Death Stars. How many do we need to have?
The moment you have your heroes fighting the same antagonist 30 years after being defeated always runs the risk of being anticlimactic. I fully understand that the emotional impact was deriving itself from Phoebe trying to find her place and all, but at the least it would have given more originality to her story to have her face off with a different foe. She should have been afforded her own original antagonist rather than have to fight off her grandfather's and she was likeable enough where I thought she deserved her own.
This is really my frustration with this movie too. It did a lot of things right but it also squandered some of it's potential.
I still contend that Shandor should have been the main antagonist. He has enough of a presence and history tied with the original movie to feel like a natural continuation without having to bring back Gozer. Even if Shador's goal was to summon Gozer at least it would have added some new layer to the threat. That was the point where I was rolling my eyes because it just felt like a cop out. Having the old team reunited to literally fight the same exact battle on a smaller scale is where it just felt lazy to me. Just from a writing perspective it was frustrating because they'd set up an interesting premise with Egon's estranged family and a possible new threat, so to have to revert back to an old one was just tiresome.
The idea of having Shandor's body preserved and in suspended animation was weird, but showed potential. His backstory from the original film actually lent that movie a sense of mystery and dread they could have easily capitalized on. Especially when you consider the opening sequence from Afterlife which I thought set the stage for something really spectacular. By the time Olivia Wilde showed up it kind of felt like a parody to me. So in another 10 years will Gozer show up AGAIN? I mean it's like the Death Stars. How many do we need to have?
The moment you have your heroes fighting the same antagonist 30 years after being defeated always runs the risk of being anticlimactic. I fully understand that the emotional impact was deriving itself from Phoebe trying to find her place and all, but at the least it would have given more originality to her story to have her face off with a different foe. She should have been afforded her own original antagonist rather than have to fight off her grandfather's and she was likeable enough where I thought she deserved her own.
This is really my frustration with this movie too. It did a lot of things right but it also squandered some of it's potential.
Lightning
Master Member
No this time they actually got Gozer in the traps, not sent back to the original dimension. So if they do Gozer again (they won't) then it has to happen differently.
Similar threads
