Ghostbusters: Afterlife

[jmc]

I see the whole Reitman issue being much more about those wanting to tear down his GB 3 the way others teared down Paul Feig's GB 2016.

I do think that there's a revenge factor from those who felt Feig's film got an unfair shake and now they want to return the favor in kind and take down Reitman's GB 3.

I won't call it a war within the fanbase because the divide seems to be more of the diehard fans of the original films versus those people who supported Feig's film but who may not be diehard GB fans in general.

I'm willing to be that most of the 'fans' of the 2016 film were never truly fans of the original, they were fans of the idea of an all female Ghostbusters film. There's a group of people who are not really interested in these type of intellectual properties as they are or were, they're interested in having them be changed to what they like. So, these folks weren't really Ghostbusters fans, but they liked the idea of Ghostbusters being changed for them. And Sony went along with it only to find it's not what most people wanted, and now they're pissed because they see it as a step backwards. We saw something similar happen to Star Wars after TLJ debacle, and even in Star Trek. Companies are starting to realise that the old fans, fans of the how the properties originally were and what they stood for, are the lifeblood of these franchises, and that these mythical 'new' fans don't exist.

 

[DACrowe]

I'm willing to be that most of the 'fans' of the 2016 film were never truly fans of the original, they were fans of the idea of an all female Ghostbusters film. There's a group of people who are not really interested in these type of intellectual properties as they are or were, they're interested in having them be changed to what they like. So, these folks weren't really Ghostbusters fans, but they liked the idea of Ghostbusters being changed for them. And Sony went along with it only to find it's not what most people wanted, and now they're pissed because they see it as a step backwards. We saw something similar happen to Star Wars after TLJ debacle, and even in Star Trek. Companies are starting to realise that the old fans, fans of the how the properties originally were and what they stood for, are the lifeblood of these franchises, and that these mythical 'new' fans don't exist.

You see if that were true, The Last Jedi and The Force Awakens wouldn't have both cleared a billion dollars. More than just "old fans" are seeing them. While there is a (small) element to what you say about Ghostbusters--more I feel some of the think piece writers regarding Ghostbusters than regular folks who did embrace the 2016 film--if you just cater to "old fans" who want nothing to change... well eventually your franchise runs on fumes and starts dying off, limping along on purely nostalgia. See Star Trek for more.

 

[jmc]

You see if that were true, The Last Jedi and The Force Awakens wouldn't have both cleared a billion dollars. More than just "old fans" are seeing them. While there is a (small) element to what you say about Ghostbusters--more I feel some of the think piece writers regarding Ghostbusters than regular folks who did embrace the 2016 film--if you just cater to "old fans" who want nothing to change... well eventually your franchise runs on fumes and starts dying off, limping along on purely nostalgia. See Star Trek for more.

And where have the Star Trek fans started moving to? The Orville, which is essentially a homage to ST, whilst Discovery isn't exactly winning people over. You also forget the part where TLJ made $700m less than TFA and that Solo outright flopped. Toy sales are down too for SW. And it's not just men, female properties like Charmed and She-Ra have also gotten flack for not staying true to their original series, the popularity of both reboots are lukewarm at best. We're seeing it across the board that companies are waking up and realising these new fans aren't actually buying the merch or seeing the films/shows multiple times.

It's pretty easy to cater to the old fans, you only have to remain true to the original. You can build on top of that, but you can't outright destroy it - there is no logic in destroying everything people love about a franchise. Ghostbuster 2016 did exactly that. It ignored everything about the other films, it wasn't even set within the same universe, with its only selling point being a female cast under the misguided idea that women would come out in droves to make up the numbers . But they didn't, because contrary to what many believe, for 30 years there were plenty of women who were perfectly fine with the existing property, who were confident enough in themselves to dress up in Ghostbusters cosplay at conventions, who already knew they could be Ghostbusters and didn't need to be told by a film they could be. The film failed because the people making it didn't understand why the original films were loved, and what we're seeing now is the realisation of the importance of preserving our mythologies.

 

[Breogan]

Happy now? Can we move on?

No all these "new" movies still dump on the forward continuity of Extreme Ghostbusters.
How dare they! How dare you! How dare anyone not like the Extreme GB version.
You must all be some kind of anti-Extremists!

It's the two Internet extremes colliding. They're vocal enough that people with rational and constructive opinions aren't heard through the loud noise.

There is only one extreme and that's EXTREME GHOSTBUSTERS! .......[/ irrational non constructive loud noise]

 

[samsnee]

It’s a movie. With all the real crap in the world that’s way worse, why people get angry over a movie is beyond me. Passion is good. Sense of entitlement is not.

 

[terry78]

It’s a movie. With all the real crap in the world that’s way worse, why people get angry over a movie is beyond me. Passion is good. Sense of entitlement is not.

When you don't have any real world problems, movies, tv shows and sports and video game *****ing is pretty much all you have.

 

[samsnee]

Or you have real world problems and instead of focusing on how to fix it, you pick the easiest target to blame for it.

 

[Sithborg]

No all these "new" movies still dump on the forward continuity of Extreme Ghostbusters.
How dare they! How dare you! How dare anyone not like the Extreme GB version.
You must all be some kind of anti-Extremists!


There is only one extreme and that's EXTREME GHOSTBUSTERS! .......[/ irrational non constructive loud noise]

That the cartoon is ignored is annoying, as that was my main source of being a fan as a kid. Loved those toys. That is one reason I enjoyed the last movie. Took some visual cues from the cartoon.

 

[Breogan]

LOL! I was being sarcastic about demanding the Extreme Ghostbusters cartoon acknowledged as the only legit continuity.
Just making fun of both extremes who insist only theirs to be the correct one to persue going forward. Otherwise you are ascribed some heinous agenda, It's so ridiculous.
If you want the originals acknowledge and continued, you are a neanderthal-alt-right-man-child. If you insist the 2016 all Fem. version must be acknowledged and continued, then you are an agenda driven PC-Feminazi
And If you just happen to casually say you are not for one or the other extreme, you can't, you must be pigeonholed in one of those two extreme boxes! LOL!

So just to make fun of both sides, I was jokingly picking neither, and going with the actual fun Extreme!
Extreme Ghostbusters! That should be the best continuity!
Which I honestly thought nobody was a fan of. LOL!
And is the whole point, you can't just like what like? ...NO!

So I'm ready to die on the Extreme Ghostbusters hill mound with you, anything and anyone that doesn't acknowledge them as the absolute, and only legit continuity going forward, must be neutralized !!!!!

Eduardo

Roland

Garrett

& Kylie

...To the Extreme!

 

[DACrowe]

And where have the Star Trek fans started moving to? The Orville, which is essentially a homage to ST, whilst Discovery isn't exactly winning people over. You also forget the part where TLJ made $700m less than TFA and that Solo outright flopped. Toy sales are down too for SW. And it's not just men, female properties like Charmed and She-Ra have also gotten flack for not staying true to their original series, the popularity of both reboots are lukewarm at best. We're seeing it across the board that companies are waking up and realising these new fans aren't actually buying the merch or seeing the films/shows multiple times.

It's pretty easy to cater to the old fans, you only have to remain true to the original. You can build on top of that, but you can't outright destroy it - there is no logic in destroying everything people love about a franchise. Ghostbuster 2016 did exactly that. It ignored everything about the other films, it wasn't even set within the same universe, with its only selling point being a female cast under the misguided idea that women would come out in droves to make up the numbers . But they didn't, because contrary to what many believe, for 30 years there were plenty of women who were perfectly fine with the existing property, who were confident enough in themselves to dress up in Ghostbusters cosplay at conventions, who already knew they could be Ghostbusters and didn't need to be told by a film they could be. The film failed because the people making it didn't understand why the original films were loved, and what we're seeing now is the realisation of the importance of preserving our mythologies.

I wasn't referring to Ghostbusters. I agree 2016 made a lot of bad choices. I don't think a remake necessarily would've failed, but if you're remaking Ghostbusters, you better do something amazing and at best it was "okay," which is quite bad when compared to 1984. Of course a lot of the initial vitriol occurred before we even had a trailer, much of it was rooted in misogyny.

Beyond Ghostbusters though, Star Trek hasn't really added many new fans since the '90s, and the result is the property is shrinking in value. JJ Abrams seemed to successfully reboot it by going back to the original character line-up with a Star Wars theme, but the sequels were just turning their wheels (it didn't help Into Darkness sucked), regurgitating old storylines like Khan. I don't watch Discovery or Orville (saw the pilot of the latter and that was enough), but the point is it went from being one of the most popular IPs among geeks to one of diminishing returns because most of the same people who were excited for new ST movies and shows in the '90s are still the primary fanbase in 2019. Yes, they may dislike Discovery, or like Star Trek Beyond, but they're too small to keep a mega-franchise going, hence why the movies have stalled, and why Discovery is struggling since the fanbase is unhappy with it and it has no new audience streams.

Star Wars has proven to be very healthy and appealing to a new generation when three of the four Disney movies all earned over $1 billion. And I'm confident Episode IX will as well. Yes, Solo flopped, but that is because it was fan service that didn't really appeal to anyone. Old fans (like myself) hated the idea of recasting Ford, and younger folks didn't really care about another prequel four months after the last one. Ironically, it is the fanbase who have come to embrace Solo as an underrated SW adventure movie, but it needed more than diehards to be a hit.

Star Wars is healthy, Disney just needs to rethink how they approach the non-Skywalker movies, and maybe accept they can't produce 2-3 SW movies a year like Marvel (which works for me, it ruins SW's mystique to turn it into another assembly line like the MCU). But IX will still make a ton of money, because the alleged "old fans" were incredibly divided on TLJ and it made a billion, while many liked Solo and it flopped. It shows that to stay relevant, you need to more than live in the past or "fandom's" seal of approval.

 

[def28]

The drop between Last Jedi and Force Awakens was pretty big. Wasn't it like 800m? That's basically A solo Marvel flick. Star Wars is in an interesting place and at the point where they are reconsidering a few things. Then with Solo yeah, nobody wanted or was asking for it. I'm still shocked Solo actually bombed and not just underperformed. That film wasn't even that harshly reviewed.

I think part of the problem with nostalgia and Star Wars is it's basically killing off all of their OT characters. Besides Vader and Obi Wan, I don't think anyone can bring the nostalgia hype now. They can't play that Force awakens card again. It actually needs some completely new fresh IP's or to use nostalgia from the prequels IMO. That audience is now grown up and favors it far more then Gen X/older millennials did.

Overall I think the key to many popular franchises is expanding. Not replacing, erasing, changing what worked etc. We're seeing too many franchises backtrack on their reboots lately in films, games and tv.

 

[terry78]

KOTOR tv series would work fine. Air it on streaming or on ABC or something.

 

[def28]

Been hoping for that! Or anything with Ahsoka.

 

[jmc]

I wasn't referring to Ghostbusters. I agree 2016 made a lot of bad choices. I don't think a remake necessarily would've failed, but if you're remaking Ghostbusters, you better do something amazing and at best it was "okay," which is quite bad when compared to 1984. Of course a lot of the initial vitriol occurred before we even had a trailer, much of it was rooted in misogyny.

Beyond Ghostbusters though, Star Trek hasn't really added many new fans since the '90s, and the result is the property is shrinking in value. JJ Abrams seemed to successfully reboot it by going back to the original character line-up with a Star Wars theme, but the sequels were just turning their wheels (it didn't help Into Darkness sucked), regurgitating old storylines like Khan. I don't watch Discovery or Orville (saw the pilot of the latter and that was enough), but the point is it went from being one of the most popular IPs among geeks to one of diminishing returns because most of the same people who were excited for new ST movies and shows in the '90s are still the primary fanbase in 2019. Yes, they may dislike Discovery, or like Star Trek Beyond, but they're too small to keep a mega-franchise going, hence why the movies have stalled, and why Discovery is struggling since the fanbase is unhappy with it and it has no new audience streams.

Star Wars has proven to be very healthy and appealing to a new generation when three of the four Disney movies all earned over $1 billion. And I'm confident Episode IX will as well. Yes, Solo flopped, but that is because it was fan service that didn't really appeal to anyone. Old fans (like myself) hated the idea of recasting Ford, and younger folks didn't really care about another prequel four months after the last one. Ironically, it is the fanbase who have come to embrace Solo as an underrated SW adventure movie, but it needed more than diehards to be a hit.

Star Wars is healthy, Disney just needs to rethink how they approach the non-Skywalker movies, and maybe accept they can't produce 2-3 SW movies a year like Marvel (which works for me, it ruins SW's mystique to turn it into another assembly line like the MCU). But IX will still make a ton of money, because the alleged "old fans" were incredibly divided on TLJ and it made a billion, while many liked Solo and it flopped. It shows that to stay relevant, you need to more than live in the past or "fandom's" seal of approval.

You can point to TLJ making a billion all you want, it still lost nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in box office from the last movie. There's an old saying in business, 20% of your customer base buy's 80% of your product, meaning those diehards, like it or not, are the ones who control what you should be doing. When you try to discard them under the idea that you can easily replace them, which is what Sony and Lucasfilm have tried to do, you get bitten in the arse financially because these 'new' people aren't spending the thousands of dollars a year on merch or watching the movies 10 times. They are not invested in this stuff. So in essence, you're reducing the value of the properties by catering to people who don't really care for them.

I already said to you how you keep a franchise alive, and it's simply by remaining true to itself, and what Lucasfilm, and Sony, and the folks over at Discovery have done is get people involved with these films and shows who don't actually understand that. Remaining true doesn't mean staying embedded in the past, it means respecting it. the thing is the people running these shows don't respect it. They not interested in moving things forward, they're interested in pushing things aside, and that's a big difference. You can't just come in and say 'I can do what ever I want' because there's a history and rules that people love, if you don't respect that, if you don't acknowledge why people love these things, then you really have no right being in control of it, because then it's about ego.

Reitman clearly understand this where the likes of Johnson and Snyder didn't. The way he talks you can already tell he understands what people wanted, even for people like myself who are very skeptical about his ideas for GB3 it's clear he's coming at it from a place of wanting to honour what his father created and the legacy the film had. And I'll guarantee you that's going to win more and more people over. People are going to give this film far more benefit of the doubt than the 2016 film because that film wasn't actually for anybody, it was more interested in sending a message and both men and women saw right through it and said 'No thank you, that's not what we wanted'.

 

[The Guard]

I wonder about the fanbase and their impact on all this. GHOSTBUSTERS, in my experience, has sort of niche die hard fans. Many of them supported the 2016 film because they like the concept of Ghostbusters, period, but wanted something different as a film.

Reitman is playing to the fans for sure, but I wonder how much of the film itself will be geared to them, and how much will be an attempt to generate a new audience. There will probably be some kind of passing-the-torch element going on, which is probably ideally what should have happened in the first place.

 

[DACrowe]

You can point to TLJ making a billion all you want, it still lost nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in box office from the last movie. There's an old saying in business, 20% of your customer base buy's 80% of your product, meaning those diehards, like it or not, are the ones who control what you should be doing. When you try to discard them under the idea that you can easily replace them, which is what Sony and Lucasfilm have tried to do, you get bitten in the arse financially because these 'new' people aren't spending the thousands of dollars a year on merch or watching the movies 10 times. They are not invested in this stuff. So in essence, you're reducing the value of the properties by catering to people who don't really care for them.

I already said to you how you keep a franchise alive, and it's simply by remaining true to itself, and what Lucasfilm, and Sony, and the folks over at Discovery have done is get people involved with these films and shows who don't actually understand that. Remaining true doesn't mean staying embedded in the past, it means respecting it. the thing is the people running these shows don't respect it. They not interested in moving things forward, they're interested in pushing things aside, and that's a big difference. You can't just come in and say 'I can do what ever I want' because there's a history and rules that people love, if you don't respect that, if you don't acknowledge why people love these things, then you really have no right being in control of it, because then it's about ego.

Reitman clearly understand this where the likes of Johnson and Snyder didn't. The way he talks you can already tell he understands what people wanted, even for people like myself who are very skeptical about his ideas for GB3 it's clear he's coming at it from a place of wanting to honour what his father created and the legacy the film had. And I'll guarantee you that's going to win more and more people over. People are going to give this film far more benefit of the doubt than the 2016 film because that film wasn't actually for anybody, it was more interested in sending a message and both men and women saw right through it and said 'No thank you, that's not what we wanted'.

I agree to a point, and think there is truth to that in Ghostbusters (though there was definitely a majorly VOCAL misogynistic factor) and comparing it to Zack Snyder is fair too. I just dismiss it with Star Wars. It's a healthy franchise that has clearly expanded the brand for a new generation. TLJ was more divisive (and longer) than TFA, but I think a large factor is that TFA was the first good SW movie in over 30 years. Fans were thirsty for good Star Wars and were seeing it 4 or 5 times. That didn't happen with TLJ, but it still was a massive hit that grossed in the ballpark of 2/3 (or 3/4 if you count Civil War) Avengers movies.

Fans try to bend it because they think it disrespected the original films; it didn't. It just eschewed fan service, but it still had major reverence for the original trilogy (obviously), and like it or not it was a hit. When IX grosses a billion, I hope the fanboys stop pretending its generally agreed upon opinion that the new trilogy is a desecration of our collective childhoods.

 

[2kt09]

When IX grosses a billion, I hope the fanboys stop pretending its generally agreed upon opinion that the new trilogy is a desecration of our collective childhoods.

The fingers would then point back to Lord & Savior JJ slaying the Rian Kennedy beast.

I wonder about the fanbase and their impact on all this. GHOSTBUSTERS, in my experience, has sort of niche die hard fans. Many of them supported the 2016 film because they like the concept of Ghostbusters, period, but wanted something different as a film.

Reitman is playing to the fans for sure, but I wonder how much of the film itself will be geared to them, and how much will be an attempt to generate a new audience. There will probably be some kind of passing-the-torch element going on, which is probably ideally what should have happened in the first place.

It's a simple recipe given they're paranormal firefighters.
I didn't think Paul Feig could crank out such an unfunny comedy.

 

[shinlyle]

It's a simple recipe given they're paranormal firefighters.
I didn't think Paul Feig could crank out such an unfunny comedy.

It could have SO EASILY been folded into the classic Ghostbusters continuity, but they HAD to just do...whatever they did. It wasn't a bad film, but if you would have made the same movie, maybe with a little less of this, a little more of that (Holtzman, mainly), and then have Peter Venkman at the end or something, you then have your cake and you can eat it, too.

 

[GuestStar2004]

While i wasn't sold on a Ghostbusters reboot in the first place, and probably wouldn't ever have been since i wanted a Ghostbusters 3 for so long. but i was still intending to go see the 2016 movie, but never did.

Once the gender politics stuff starting affecting the movie i was so put off by it. once racial or gender politics becomes a reason for the existence of a film or even gimmick... its just a big turn off.

 

[NHawk19]

Really looking forward to this movie. Hope they can pass the torch well and establish something meaningful.

Thinking back on the whole debacle of the 2016 though the only person I feel really bad for is Leslie Jones. Yeah the movie was questionable from the beginning and turned out to be crap, and yea she's an adult and chose to be in it. But what the internet trolls put her through was pretty unconscionable. Now on top of what she went through, and being in a bad movie, she's basically being given every indication that she went through all that for nothing but a paycheck (a good one grant you), and they'll try to bury the film in the bargain bin or worse, making it seem as though she went through it for nothing.

 

[terry78]

Yeah I know the mindset when it comes to social media is just ignore the trolls but a lot of them went past normal trolling to just constant bombardment.

 

[Frodo]

At this point you have sort of a newer tactic of trolls trying to "take down" films before they're even out of the gate for the GA to decide.

Its become a preemptive action which a bit like dirtying up your political opponent before they can make a case to voters.

There use to be alot of trolls rooting for failure of a given film, but now its gotten to the point of trolls trying to actually hurt films themselves and duke it out verball with the filmmakers and actors involved.

Unfortunately , I think it will be more the norm than the outlier moving forward.

 

[NHawk19]

The thing is that there can and should be debate among a fan base when a movie is announced and details come to light. There are legitimate indicators of whether a movie will be bad, good, and/or wholly different from what's being promised to, and/or desired by fans. When well received it can build buzz and create a positive outcome for all.

From the announcement the 2016 film was a perfect setup for general debate and discussion, because every indication was the film was going to deviate from what the fans were hoping for. The question was would the deviations produce an overall positive or negative reaction from the fan base. As information was released, the more fans saw, the more it didn't seem like it would deviate in a good way. Then the noise hit from both sides and created a harmonic resonance to rival Tacoma Narrows. In the end the ugly side of the internet created the most noise, and the movie ended up being bad to where it seems like they just dug their heels in to prove a point. The 2016 was more of a perfect storm, than I think the norm moving forwards.

There will probably always be a contingent of trolls who don't like something about something, or just want to cause general chaos. My hope though is that they cut through the noise to the real issues with that film, and resolve or avoid them in this one.

Ghostbusters, and The Real Ghostbusters were my favorite things to watch as a kid and I'd really like to feel that joy again. This time around the teaser seems to have set the tone and indicated that there's a good chance for that moving forward. I can only hope as more information is released that will continue to be the case.

 

[James.B]

The studio would not comment on plot details, but sources say the story will focus on a single mom and her family, with Coon playing the mom and Wolfhard playing her son. It’s currently unknown how that will connect to the new Ghostbustersteam.

 

[Boom]

"We are making a movie with supernatural elements and the main characters are kids."

"Get Finn Wolfhard."