Ghostbusters: Afterlife

[Sithborg]

The analogy sort of doesn't work for what Reitman is trying to say, considering Juno is an acclaimed movie.

No, it works. It works exactly for the group he is talking about.

 

[Boom]

In any case, he doesn't need to tear down the last film in order to prop up the new one. It's petty.

 

[Boom]

Talking **** about an all-female Ghostbusters movie, yet I don't see fans jumping up and down for Baby Ghostbusters either. Sooooooo...

 

[samsnee]

There is some disturbing connetations to what Reitman is saying. I mean, how is "Juno of Ghostbusters" anything but a sexist attack against the last movie.

Not sure what you mean?

His quote:

“I’m not making the ‘Juno’ of ‘Ghostbusters’ movies,” said the director, while being interviewed on a recent episode of the Bill Burr Podcast.

From there, Reitman discusses the painstaking lengths he’s willing to go to bring the original look and feel to the new “Ghostbusters” film. Needless to say, hiring the son of the original director means that the studio is getting a very reverential sequel in 2020.

I think he's trying to assure people that even though he directed Juno, he's not approaching his Ghostbusters with that same mindset of a quirky indie movie. I don't see it is a sexist attack against the last movie.

 

[MadVillainy]

In any case, he doesn't need to tear down the last film in order to prop up the new one. It's petty.

And corny

But once again, I'm already done with Ghostbusters. Why people keep making such a big deal whether it's the male/female stuff, whether it's a sequel, reboot, whatever. I don't know.

I like the original 2 Ghostbusters and I'm fine to stay at that.

All y'all both sides are ridiculously childish

 

[shinlyle]

Well, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't completely stoked for the new film. I felt like the last film was a misstep. NOT because it was all girls, I just felt like it could have been folded in as a sequel to the original 2, and just kept on trucking. When Venkman said in the first one, "The franchise rights alone could make us all rich beyond our wildest dreams", that seemed like Peter would be more than willing to start Ghostbusters branched in other towns and cities...or he could move "to San Fernando Valley", and let someone else franchise the NY branch.
Look! BOTH teams are equally relevant and included without polarizing the fanbase!

BUT...they didn't want to do that. I have a soft spot for the 2016 GB film. It was NOT great. AT ALL. Aside from McKinney as Holtzman, the characters/actresses were pretty forgettable. BUT, the story wasn't bad, and, MOST importantly, my daughter likes it.

I remember breaking the news of a new GB film to her, and she was all excited about it. Then I told her it was the same universe with the boys and the girls wouldn't be in it, but that there would be "new girls". She was like, "oh, well. I like the other Ghostbusters, too".

I guess no one warned her that she was supposed to start up 12 FB and Twitter accounts, read ONLY The Mary Sue, and spit vitriol at her male oppressors.

It's honestly not that big of a deal from either perspective, except what the offended want to make of it. In the end, there will be another Ghostbusters movie that will probably be "not as good as the first one, but better than the second one", and the bickering will continue indefinitely.

People...

 

[jmc]

I see no attack on the last movie. At worst he’s acknowledging what it was people were wanting originally - a direct sequel.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Talking **** about an all-female Ghostbusters movie, yet I don't see fans jumping up and down for Baby Ghostbusters either. Sooooooo...

Who's talking **** about Ghostbusters 16 now? I don't see how he's attacking that film.

 

[Boom]

Who's talking **** about Ghostbusters 16 now?

Just talking out loud about nobody in particular. Just find it amusing that the '16 film got its fair share of crap thrown its way and now here we are finally getting a direct sequel to the originals...

With teenagers.

Neato.

 

[jmc]

To be fair there a lot of unease towards the kids concept also.

 

[DarkKnight88]

How anyone can mix up what he’s saying is ridiculous. He’s saying this won’t be an indie dramedy ala Juno.

I swear, sometimes the internet...

 

[Nathan]

To be fair there a lot of unease towards the kids concept also.

True. But we don't know in what capacity they will be used or how heavily involved they are going to be. So we're still trying to be cautiously optimistic. With Ghostbuster 2016, we knew it was gonna be a reboot that nobody asked for. So naturally fans would be immediately up in arms over it.

 

[shinlyle]

Just talking out loud about nobody in particular. Just find it amusing that the '16 film got its fair share of crap thrown its way and now here we are finally getting a direct sequel to the originals...

With teenagers.

Neato.

If it makes you feel better, I read the teenager part, and I let out an audible groan. Still, I'll give it a chance, just like I did with the 2016 film.

 

[DarkKnight88]

If it moves the story forward, I’m happy.

 

[Abudefduf]

As someone who watched the original Ghostbusters for the first time 2/3 years ago... he's right. What an unfunny piece of crap that movie is. It legitimately made me like Bill Murray less.

EDIT: Okay, I realize I'm being way too harsh. It's not a bad movie, I just really don't care for it.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Holy out of context, Batman!

 

[Thome216]

I could watch it today and still LOL at all the same spots. But then again, I am mentally immature...

 

[Teelie]

I didn't mind the 2016 one. It could have been better but it's faults weren't because of women, it was a letdown of a story. All of them could have been men and it still wouldn't improve it.

This new one with teenagers has me more concerned than that one did. I'm not against having teens in it but they shouldn't be the lead in the movie. They can take up a secondary position. Maybe they could star in a sequel to this one if they don't screw it up.

 

[DACrowe]

Jason Reitman made a bad choice of words while attempting to do what everyone does when selling sequels: fans will love it, and we're doing it for the fans. It's just *SOME* Ghostbusters fans were so obnoxious and, yes, misogynistic, and petulant in 2016, and that women who supported the 2016 film feel like they're being stepped over by this reboot, it sounds really tone deaf.

But no, I don't think the guy who made Juno and Young Adult meant to say "this is for the misogynists out there." But everyone is going to pretend that is what he said, because Twitter doesn't do nuance.

 

[jmc]

It's baffling to me these people don't have the ability to stop and think about whether they are interpreting things like this incorrectly. Basic levels of critical thinking, the ability to question ones immediate reaction, has somehow gone completely out the window.

 

[Sithborg]

Yes, a statement made without the broader context of what happened back in 2016.

 

[DACrowe]

It's baffling to me these people don't have the ability to stop and think about whether they are interpreting things like this incorrectly. Basic levels of critical thinking, the ability to question ones immediate reaction, has somehow gone completely out the window.

In this case, I agree. Yes, I can see how if you want to interpret it as, "This is to appease the man-children who said racist and sexist things until Leslie Jones quit social media," you could. But if you look at the context for half a minute, it's obvious what he meant to say and that he's not that guy. But that would require not using every statement as an excuse to for a cultural "unpacking" think piece.

 

[jmc]

In this case, I agree. Yes, I can see how if you want to interpret it as, "This is to appease the man-children who said racist and sexist things until Leslie Jones quit social media," you could. But if you look at the context for half a minute, it's obvious what he meant to say and that he's not that guy. But that would require not using every statement as an excuse to for a cultural "unpacking" think piece.

Well, that's exactly right. It's people latching onto one particular quote, and changing its context to reflect what they think is being said. Either they are completely stupid, or they are intentionally doing it, the later is the worse because it means they are aware of what's being said but don't care.

 

[Sithborg]

Or, people are a bit sensitive to dog whistles for the scumbag "fans" that were out in force over the last movie.

 

[jmc]

And maybe said people need to grow the **** up and learn that not everything has some ulterior motive.