Ghostbusters: Afterlife

[TheVileOne]

To be fair, Rich Evans always seems the most level headed and said he likes 75% of it.

Spoiler tags for safety.

Spoiler

I do think they pile on a bit too much. Like the whole CG likeness thing.

Like, Harold Ramis was always on board with more Ghostbusters. We know this. He helped write the 2009 video game. He worked on it, voiced himself. The whole original cast came back. His daughter obviously gave her blessing on this project, which is also documented.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife: Harold Ramis’ Daughter Reflects on Movie – The Hollywood Reporter

I'm not saying they are wrong that this shouldn't bother them. Parts of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood bother me as well relating to Sharon Tate and how that story played out. But as much as it bothers me, Quentin Tarantino sought out Tate's living relatives and received their blessing and approval for this story. Now, I realize Bruce Lee's daughter took issue with the film, and that's fair. Tarantino has acknowledged that.

I guess my point here, is that I think it's sort of silly to get that upset and fixated on the CG likeness of Ramis. He'd done it before himself. He always wanted to do more Ghostbusters material and tried to get a sequel off the ground for years. His daughter gave her approval and blessing to the production. I mean if they're OK with it, nothing really the Red Letter Media guys say really matters. These are public figures. There's not really some law that we shouldn't or not use people's likenesses or what have you after they die. Or that people can't be depicted onscreen again after they die, by other actors, using CG or otherwise. Unless Harold Ramis left specific instructions not to do this in his will, I say it's fair game.

They frame Harold Ramis as "anti-franchise" but he really wasn't, at least where Ghostbusters was concerned. Ramis was always willing to milk that cow until it was dead dry.

 

[TheVileOne]

I always like their discussions, they sound much more genuine and interesting that 99% of other youtubers/reviewers, even if I don't agree with them. Is fascinating to know their point of view because they know enough about cinema to make them legit.

I think the difference is with RLM at least usually I think they are usually making legitimate criticisms analysis and not making bad faith arguments, ie say Fandom Menace, Critical Drinker, Nerdrotic, Yellow Flash. They are also aren't spreading false lies and rage bait for clicks. Or rather, I believe they are genuine and not just hating for clicks.

They do tend to fall on the negative side. However, I do think we need folks like RLM who are able to call Hollywood on some of their more BS practices.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Yeah, I usually don’t agree with them on newer stuff but I love when they’re really passionate and actually positive about some older movies like Re:view is always a great watch.

I could do without crapping constantly on new Star Trek though. They do have their constant punching bags lol

 

[BatLobster]

I've always been a fan of RLM, and enjoy their conversations even if I find myself agreeing with them less and less. Unfortunately, I think this Ghostbusters review they kind of went full self-parody in terms of going full "Comic Book Guy" and just being grumps who don't even seem to like these kinds of movies anymore. I think they just couldn't get out of their own way on this one. It's ironic because when 2016 came out, they flat out said that it was the wrong movie because people wanted a "Force Awakens' for Ghostbusters. So....yeah. You can't tell me that's not exactly what this movie delivered. You can make legitimate criticisms of something without taking a giant dump on it. Love them, find them entertaining-- but they're just these guys to me at this point.

I very much see this viewpoint, and I think people are being too overbearing about the reviews. Film critics are not a monolith.

It's not only film critics, personally I am also trying to look at the bigger conversation around nostalgia in films and trying to understand why this film crosses a line too far for some people, what it is that makes it okay in one film but NOT okay in another. I feels like a conversation worth having, because the whole idea has become very emotionally loaded, for a variety of reasons I guess.

I personally am starting to wonder if we're simply reaching a point in our pop culture where people are finally starting to get tired of franchise reboots and the sequelization of everything and those frustrations are being taken out on this film to a degree. I don't think I can be convinced that this movie wouldn't have received reviews akin to The Force Awakens if it had come out sooner and if the 2016 film didn't also exist. And I have my problems with The Force Awakens, so that's not to say that I don't find things to fault with both films. Where I find myself scratching my head is looking at the reviews for TFA, the reviews for GB:A and wondering why there is such a huge discrepency there. Especially when I think GB:A on the whole, did a hell of a lot more to differentiate itself from its predecessors. What makes one thing pandering and another thing more pure?

And don't get me wrong, I really do lament the fact that we're not creating any new franchises now that will be worth revisiting in decades. I would love to see that change and see some more big, original ideas. I think we really need that. But when I go see a movie like Ghostbusters and see a story from childhood continue for the first time in 30 years, you're damn right I want the member berries and nostalgia. I'm paying money to sit down in a theater, have the lights go down, and be a kid again for a couple of hours. 100%. What's wrong with that? It gets tiresome when people constantly act like they're above that, especially in nerd culture. Still liking the stuff we liked as kids is kind of what we do. I get being cynical about it when it feels corporate and like it's being tacked on by someone who isn't able to quite tap into it in a way that feels authentic. But the specific circumstances around this film couldn't be any further from that. Granted, I'm not saying I want all Ghostbusters films to keep rehashing things. Definitely not. Let's do something new with the next one. After 30 years though, it felt right to bring things full circle as you're relaunching it.

 

[TheVileOne]

I've always been a fan of RLM, and enjoy their conversations even if I find myself agreeing with them less and less. Unfortunately, I think this Ghostbusters review they kind of went full self-parody in terms of going full "Comic Book Guy" and just being grumps who don't even seem to like these kinds of movies anymore. I think they just couldn't get out of their own way on this one. It's ironic because when 2016 came out, they flat out said that it was the wrong movie because people wanted a "Force Awakens' for Ghostbusters. So....yeah. You can't tell me that's not exactly what this movie delivered. You can make legitimate criticisms of something without taking a giant dump on it. Love them, find them entertaining-- but they're just these guys to me at this point.

It's not only film critics, personally I am also trying to look at the bigger conversation around nostalgia in films and trying to understand why this film crosses a line too far for some people, and what it is that makes it OK in one film but not OK in another. I feels like a conversation worth having, because the whole idea has become very emotionally loaded, for a variety of reasons I guess.

I personally am starting to wonder if we're simply reaching a point in our pop culture where people are finally starting to get tired of franchise reboots and the sequelization of everything and those frustrations are being taken out on this film to a degree. I don't think I can be convinced that this movie wouldn't have received reviews akin to The Force Awakens if it had come out sooner and if the 2016 film didn't also exist. And I have my problems with The Force Awakens, so that's not to say that I don't find things to fault with both films. Where I find myself scratching my head is looking at the reviews for TFA, the reviews for GB:A and wondering why there is such a huge discrepency there. Especially when I think GB:A on the whole, did a hell of a lot more to differentiate itself from its predecessors. What makes one thing pandering and another thing more pure?

And don't get me wrong, I really do lament the fact that we're not creating any new franchises now that will be worth revisiting in decades. I would love to see that change and see some more big, original ideas. I think we really need that. But when I go see a movie like Ghostbusters and see a story from childhood continue for the first time in 30 years, you're damn right I want the member berries and nostalgia. I'm paying money to sit down in a theater, have the lights go down, and be a kid again for a couple of hours. 100%. What's wrong with that? It gets tiresome when people constantly act like they're above that, especially in nerd culture. Still liking the stuff we liked as kids is kind of what we do. I get being cynical about it when it feels corporate and like it's being tacked on by someone who isn't able to quite tap into it in a way that feels authentic. But the specific circumstances around this film couldn't be any further from that. Granted, I'm not saying I want all Ghostbusters films to keep rehashing things. Definitely not. Let's do something new with the next one. After 30 years though, it felt right to bring things full circle as you're relaunching it.

I do think we have reached a tipping point with nostalgia reboots and sequels and what not.

Now speaking personally, I think there is a right and wrong way to do it. I was fine with Ghostbusters: Afterlife because I genuinely liked Phoebe, Podcast and how they kind of went on their own journey.

 

[BatLobster]

I do think we have reached a tipping point with nostalgia reboots and sequels and what not.

Now speaking personally, I think there is a right and wrong way to do it. I was fine with Ghostbusters: Afterlife because I genuinely liked Phoebe, Podcast and how they kind of went on their own journey.

I agree. That's the thing, I was on the ride with and invested in the new characters, so everything else felt like a cherry on top.

And I agree that it feels like we're at a tipping point. I think that's a conversation worth having, I just think it's unfortunate it's being taken out on what I feel to be a pretty good movie and one of the better attempts at this kind of thing.

 

[TheVileOne]

I agree. That's the thing, I was on the ride with and invested in the new characters, so everything else felt like a cherry on top.

And I agree that it feels like we're at a tipping point. I think that's a conversation worth having, I just think it's unfortunate it's being taken out on what I feel to be a pretty good movie and one of the better attempts at this kind of thing.

At the same time, I can understand why the nostalgia of this film is just "too much" for some people, even people who love the original. That's why I don't completely dismiss RLM's critiques of this film. Other than their views on Harold Ramis when historic evidence proves he's not really anti-Ghostbusters franchise when Ramis was really the driving force behind Ghostbusters becoming a big multimedia franchise, and Ramis was involved in a lot the past supplemental material. He had no problem working on the video game and co-wrote it for crying out loud. Ramis was also involved in the third movie that never got off the ground for many years. The interest for his part was always there. That I think is wrong.

But like I can't control how people react to nostalgia in different ways than me. I think they at least backed up their views and opinions. I simply take issue with Ramis being this rebellious anti-Hollywood avant-gard filmmaker. I mean maybe in his earlier years certainly, but the dude made f'n ANALYZE THAT. I very much love Analyze This unironically, but Ramis made a sequel to that film that definitely didn't need. Ramis was not immune to making sequels.

 

[BatLobster]

At the same time, I can understand why the nostalgia of this film is just "too much" for some people, even people who love the original. That's why I don't completely dismiss RLM's critiques of this film. Other than their views on Harold Ramis when historic evidence proves he's not really anti-Ghostbusters franchise when Ramis was really the driving force behind Ghostbusters becoming a big multimedia franchise, and Ramis was involved in a lot the past supplemental material. He had no problem working on the video game and co-wrote it for crying out loud. Ramis was also involved in the third movie that never got off the ground for many years. The interest for his part was always there. That I think is wrong.

But like I can't control how people react to nostalgia in different ways than me. I think they at least backed up their views and opinions. I simply take issue with Ramis being this rebellious anti-Hollywood avant-gard filmmaker. I mean maybe in his earlier years certainly, but the dude made f'n ANALYZE THAT. I very much love Analyze This unironically, but Ramis made a sequel to that film that definitely didn't need. Ramis was not immune to making sequels.

Yeah, fully agreed on Ramis. That is my issue with RLM, I think sometimes they just let their own cynical attitude towards everything that they suspect as a product of the "Hollywood machine" get in their way and miss simple facts to the contrary like that. I think, while clearly smart guys, they just miss the point sometimes. Again though, I still subscibe and check out their videos anyway. Sometimes I just wish I could have a beer with them and argue a bit haha.

Nostalgia can be a very personal thing, that's what makes it a tricky topic I guess. For me, the movie's climax was touching to me for personal reasons that were bigger than simply my attachment to the Ghostbusters franchise. Because I think nostalgia is about more than just an attachment to a particular franchise. Maybe it reminds you of a certain time in your life, maybe people that have since passed. It hits us all differently, but it can be a powerful thing- which of course is why so many films are currently chasing it, which in turn is maybe why people are sick of it.

Personally though, I try go into films like this with an open heart and wanting to be emotionally "manipulated"-- because that's what movies are. They're emotionally maniuplative magic tricks that are designed to make us feel an emotion and maybe connect to something in our own lives. If the trick doesn't work on you-- fine, but I feel like one can have a more nuanced examination as to why, versus just attacking the movie for existing in the first place, which it kind of feels like they mostly were doing. I fundamentally disagree with their premise that Ghostbusters is nothing more than a silly comedy from 1984. It became a lot more than that very quickly. It's discounting all the intelligence and sincerity that Aykroyd and Ramis brought to the idea to simply look at it as nothing but a Bill Murray comedy.

 

[henzINNIT]

I love RLM and can't really argue any of the criticisms they have here. My final score is just a little higher in the end. I do stop to think about the 'Ghostbusters' fanbase at this point, and how many generations it covers. Someone Mike's age was old enough to appreciate the original film for being the weird comedy about a small ghost extermination business. It was a childhood staple for me, cartoons, toys and a love for the films that pre-dated being able to detect the film's humour. I grew up with the franchise, I think this film mines that kind of nostalgia, something than can be lost on even some Ghostbusters fans. That original film is such a strange alchemy that it appeals to many people in different ways, quite likely different ways depending on your age when you saw it.

 

[Punisher_MAX]

Just saw it. I grew up with the movies thanks to my dad and the show cause I am a millennial, I personally loved the movie. The end was touching and a beautiful way to honor Ramis.

Sure it's very nostalgic but screw it, I loved it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah, I loved it. Usually I can see the complaints about nostalgia and sequels being structured to similarly, but I don't get it here. The ending functioned incredibly well within a beautiful narrative. The movie is also very funny. I do not get the notion this isn't comedic. Phoebe laying down the dry humor, while Podcast was adorably excited gave me plenty of chuckles. Also, while yes, there are similarities, but the kids are the heart of the film, and they are very different then the original group and lead to a very different first two acts. Even Phoebe, aka the best Ghostbuster, while very Egon, is her own little person with a very different story from the other Ghostbusters. And it is that narrative that drives the film.

 

[weezerspider]

I very much see this viewpoint, and I think people are being too overbearing about the reviews. Film critics are not a monolith.

Yeah. Also, it’s not like the last film was critically acclaimed either. There are plenty of critics who gave both bad reviews.

I found it to be way too self-serious. We joked it was like Flight being the sequel to Airplane!(obviously not that extreme). Ghostbusters is a comedy. There’s no weight to the original film at all, which is why I’ve found the responses to both the “reboots” rather weird.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Critics are people too. Even the crappy ones.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Critics are people too. Even the crappy ones.

I love the film but I completely get the critics. If I was someone who had to sit through 200 movies a year I’d probably hate this too. afterlife is a movie for people who have never seen a GB film before and those who love them. If you arent in those two categories you’re going to lose your mind.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I love the film but I completely get the critics. If I was someone who had to sit through 200 movies a year I’d probably hate this too. afterlife is a movie for people who have never seen a GB film before and those who love them. If you arent in those two categories you’re going to lose your mind.

I disgree with this. I think this is a movie that cynics aren't going to enjoy. But most audiences will get a kick, no matter their Ghostbuster knowledge. This includes those that might have seen GB flicks in the past, and weren't big fans.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

I disgree with this. I think this is a movie that cynics aren't going to enjoy. But most audiences will get a kick, no matter their Ghostbuster knowledge. This includes those that might have seen GB flicks in the past, and weren't big fans.

It’s a perfectly good movie if you just let it do it’s thing. But it isn’t subtle. All the artifice isn’t just on display, it’s firehosed into your face. All I’m saying is that you’re looking for something different it’s not likely to satisfy your itch. But if you want to bust some ghosts, it’s all you want and more.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It’s a perfectly good movie if you just let it do it’s thing. But it isn’t subtle. All the artifice isn’t just on display, it’s firehosed into your face. All I’m saying is that you’re looking for something different it’s not likely to satisfy your itch. But if you want to bust some ghosts, it’s all you want and more.

But it is different from Ghostbusters. It's honestly more Lucas/Spielberg then the original flicks. Which were very adult male comedies. Not four quadrant coming of age flicks. The family drama doesn't fit Ghostbusters. The core story about Phoebe is Star Wars or E.T., not Ghostbusters.

Which is why I find the complaints that is is a copy, kind of ridiculous. It has the funny and a lot of similar plot elements. But the core of the story is Phoebe, who is far more a complete character then any of the original Ghostbusters. She has more of an arc as well.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

But it is different from Ghostbusters. It's honestly more Lucas/Spielberg then the original flicks. Which were very adult male comedies. Not four quadrant coming of age flicks. The family drama doesn't fit Ghostbusters. The core story about Phoebe is Star Wars or E.T., not Ghostbusters.

Which is why I find the complaints that is is a copy, kind of ridiculous. It has the funny and a lot of similar plot elements. But the core of the story is Phoebe, who is far more a complete character then any of the original Ghostbusters. She has more of an arc as well.

I don’t disagree with anything here except that it is a copy. It’s a flat out remake of the original film, and a better one than the 2016 attempt since it actually gets the first outing versus just doing a parody/farce version of the OG movie. And that’s not a bad thing! The critics think it is, at least some of them. Me, it’s all I wanted.

 

[Gold Samurai]

So Hasbro spoiled the ending to the movie as did Variety.

Spoiler

The Day Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Ernie Hudson Became Ghostbusters Again



Hasbro reveals Ghostbusters: Afterlife Plasma Series Two-Pack! (SPOILERS!) - Ghostbusters News

Even though they've done interviews already It hasn't even been a week since the movie debuted.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I don’t disagree with anything here except that it is a copy. It’s a flat out remake of the original film, and a better one than the 2016 attempt since it actually gets the first outing versus just doing a parody/farce version of the OG movie. And that’s not a bad thing! The critics think it is, at least some of them. Me, it’s all I wanted.

It really isn't though.

Spoiler

Facing the same villain does not equal "remake".

Where is Phoebe or really any of theses characters in the first? What is the similar narrative thrust between the two? Even the climax, with all his nostalgia bombing, has a completely different narrative focal point and reason for existence.

A neuro divergent kids tries to find herself, family and friends in her love of science, is not middle aged dudes trying to get that paper.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

It really isn't though.

Spoiler

Facing the same villain does not equal "remake".

Where is Phoebe or really any of theses characters in the first? What is the similar narrative thrust between the two? Even the climax, with all his nostalgia bombing, has a completely different narrative focal point and reason for existence.

A neuro divergent kids tries to find herself, family and friends in her love of science, is not middle aged dudes trying to get that paper.

Threre are no characters, except for perhaps Phoebe’s mom, in terms of arcs. They’re the same people we meet at the start of the film as at the end. That’s part of the complaints of the critics but what that reveals their flaw in viewing the film because they expect arcs. The genius of the first film is that it is had no arcs. It’s about busting ghosts. Sorry man, we just have totally different view on why we like this movie.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm kind of baffled by the "too serious" comments. It never went very long without a laugh or at least a chuckle, Rudd, Phoebe and Podcast kept those coming throughout. It's still a very light film. Yeah, it leans a bit more into dramedy meets Amblin but that didn't feel inappropriate at all to me. It's 30 years later. What would've been way weirder is if they just made a Ghostbusters 3 with Murray, Aykroyd and Hudson with the same exact tone of the originals, despite the fact their beloved Egon is dead. Ghostbusters II had a sweet storyline with Peter and Dana trying to rekindle a broken relationship, and had some pretty serious moments where Dana is terrified for her baby. If anything I wanted Afterlife to be a bit more serious/scary.

If Ghostbusters is nothing more than a silly comedy to you, I don't think you're appreciating the full appeal of the franchise as a whole. When I was a kid they were superheroes to me. In fact they were probably my first superheroes along with the TMNT. As I got older, my appreciation simply grew as I got more of the jokes and appreciated the unique blend of elements in the filmmaking. But that definitely never turned into thinking the entire movie was a joke itself. This may also have to do with what your entry point into the franchise is. For me, I was too young to remember what I saw first, it was all a blur. But Ghostbusters II was definitely the one I watched the most. The movies took on more of a weight because it was the "real life" version of the cartoons I watched.

Even if you entirely remove the comedy, the idea of using technology to combat paranormal threats is still a really cool sci-fi premise. And the movies fully committed to the verisimilitude of that idea and created iconography out of it. I'm not pulling this out of of nowhere. Listen to Ivan Reitman or Dan Aykroyd talk about Ghostbusters. That was very much the intent. And obviously, Aykroyd's genesis of the idea came from a very real and personal place for him with his family's history.

 

[TheVileOne]

I personally enjoyed Phoebe's goofy jokes. I found Mckenna Grace very impressive and charismatic actually. Like she really sold all the material.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I'm kind of baffled by the "too serious" comments. It never went very long without a laugh or at least a chuckle, Rudd, Phoebe and Podcast kept those coming throughout. It's still a very light film. Yeah, it leans a bit more into dramedy meets Amblin but that didn't feel inappropriate at all to me. It's 30 years later. What would've been way weirder is if they just made a Ghostbusters 3 with Murray, Aykroyd and Hudson with the same exact tone of the originals, despite the fact their beloved Egon is dead. Ghostbusters II had a sweet storyline with Peter and Dana trying to rekindle a broken relationship, and had some pretty serious moments where Dana is terrified for her baby. If anything I wanted Afterlife to be a bit more serious/scary.

If Ghostbusters is nothing more than a silly comedy to you, I don't think you're appreciating the full appeal of the franchise as a whole. When I was a kid they were superheroes to me. In fact they were probably my first superheroes along with the TMNT. As I got older, my appreciation simply grew as I got more of the jokes and appreciated the unique blend of elements in the filmmaking. But that definitely never turned into thinking the entire movie was a joke itself. This may also have to do with what your entry point into the franchise is. For me, I was too young to remember what I saw first, it was all a blur. But Ghostbusters II was definitely the one I watched the most. The movies took on more of a weight because it was the "real life" version of the cartoons I watched.

Even if you entirely remove the comedy, the idea of using technology to combat paranormal threats is still a really cool sci-fi premise. And the movies fully committed to the verisimilitude of that idea and created iconography out of it. I'm not pulling this out of of nowhere. Listen to Ivan Reitman or Dan Aykroyd talk about Ghostbusters. That was very much the intent. And obviously, Aykroyd's genesis of the idea came from a very real and personal place for him with his family's history.

I literally just finished watching it about twenty minutes ago...

Put me down as the opposite of this.

Gotta go to sleep but gonna post my thinking on it later but this thing had me stone faced for the vast majority of its run time. You couldn't pay me to watch this again it was so dull.

 

[henzINNIT]

This is the juicy contradiction when comparing Afterlife to Force Awakens. GBA is technically a greater departure for its series; it has a different tone and is about different things. It is less of a rehash than a JJ film would be. But, a lot of the changes have effectively made this Ghostbusters more directly like TFA. The reverence, nostalgia, family and legacy is all Disney Star Wars bread and butter. Once again I can totally understand why a person would feel positively and negatively about the change. It wasn't in the original's DNA.

I personally enjoyed Phoebe's goofy jokes. I found Mckenna Grace very impressive and charismatic actually. Like she really sold all the material.

Yeah Phoebe was great. I bought in to her character right away. She had some funny moments, and Grace did a fantastic job. That wink she gives Paul Rudd at some point had me in stitches.