Ghostbusters: Afterlife

[super85]

I’m sorry but I am finding it really hard to take you seriously.

Yup. Insert that Tom Hardy "Its bait" gif.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

I don understand this reference video? Is this from GB2? What has J Riteman done compared to Paul Feig. Paul Feig has super credits, large success Imdb list and in his so many interview he speaks about how naturally funny and hilarious the 2016 cast was. I just hop this new one is loud, fun, and light, with similar loud hyper-comedy as 2016.

i hop all who see teh new film enjoying it! Great we get new GB movie but sad it try to ignore eventful 2016 oroginal film

Now you’re just trolling

 

[Filmfan93]

On first sight, he does behave like a troll, but then he's been a member on this site since 2013?

 

[DyeLorean]

Believe it or not, for some of us english isn't our native language. Sometimes is hard.

 

[DarkKnight88]

I don’t think anyone is mocking his English, but the content of what’s being said.

 

[DyeLorean]

But that's the thing, sometimes it comes off weird and incoherent when trying to articulate a sentence.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Sure, but saying what’s Jason Reitman done compared with Paul Feig in terms of credits is kind of asking for it. I don’t think that’s being misinterpreted.

 

[DyeLorean]

Paul Feig has done some truly great comedies. Jason Reitman has a filmography much more mature and interesting, sure, but Paul Feig can be really good.

 

[MOVIELORD101]

I don understand this reference video? Is this from GB2? What has J Riteman done compared to Paul Feig. Paul Feig has super credits, large success Imdb list and in his so many interview he speaks about how naturally funny and hilarious the 2016 cast was. I just hop this new one is loud, fun, and light, with similar loud hyper-comedy as 2016.

i hop all who see teh new film enjoying it! Great we get new GB movie but sad it try to ignore eventful 2016 oroginal film

NO, the 2016 movie (which is NOT the original; the movie from 1984 is) and its characters won't be referenced in this movie because THAT movie was an attempted reboot, not a sequel. Plus, most people REALLY didn't like it. Paul Feig is a fool who started a gender war with fans of the original movie because he couldn't take criticism. He called people who thought the movie wasn't funny sexist toward women when, in reality, the movie was sexist towards men. It painted all male the characters as dumb, pathetic, or *******s who are out to hinder the "heroes" while also writing all 4 leads like the same character but different variants. And the girls defeat the villain by shooting him in the crotch as a blatant "girl power" move that NO ONE ASKED FOR and earlier movies didn't pull on either gender. I did a huge couple of posts earlier in this thread why that movie didn't work, so I won't explain again here. Do yourself a favor and look it up. Afterlife is what we should have gotten 5 years ago. You're defending something that's not worth it.

 

[MOVIELORD101]

Paul Feig has done some truly great comedies. Jason Reitman has a filmography much more mature and interesting, sure, but Paul Feig can be really good.

Spy was decently funny and that originally gave me hope his GB movie would be good. And then he went to war with the fandom over unfunny trailers.

 

[DyeLorean]

Can't argue with that.

 

[Mysteryman]

Spy was decently funny and that originally gave me hope his GB movie would be good. And then he went to war with the fandom over unfunny trailers.

He publicly disagreed with fans over bad trailers?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

NO, the 2016 movie (which is NOT the original; the movie from 1984 is) and its characters won't be referenced in this movie because THAT movie was an attempted reboot, not a sequel. Plus, most people REALLY didn't like it. Paul Feig is a fool who started a gender war with fans of the original movie because he couldn't take criticism. He called people who thought the movie wasn't funny sexist toward women when, in reality, the movie was sexist towards men. It painted all male the characters as dumb, pathetic, or *******s who are out to hinder the "heroes" while also writing all 4 leads like the same character but different variants. And the girls defeat the villain by shooting him in the crotch as a blatant "girl power" move that NO ONE ASKED FOR and earlier movies didn't pull on either gender. I did a huge couple of posts earlier in this thread why that movie didn't work, so I won't explain again here. Do yourself a favor and look it up. Afterlife is what we should have gotten 5 years ago. You're defending something that's not worth it.

Serious question. Why do you do all the capitalization? It comes off super aggressive.

If you didn't like the 2016 version, that's cool. I know plenty of people who don't, including my bestie. But if others like it, why attack them over it? Why does anyone do that? 2016 was no affront to anyone. Feig reacting to a lot of chatter, that included a crap ton of sexism, isn't some black mark against him. It might be a mark against anyone who holds a grudge. Because that is some Captain Marvel deep seated hatred for nothing. Unless of course you were offended by the calling out of sexism.

 

[MOVIELORD101]

He publicly disagreed with fans over bad trailers?

Yeah, it was pre-release. That's when he made his "your sexist if you don't like my movie" remarks.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah, it was pre-release. That's when he made his "your sexist if you don't like my movie" remarks.

May this have been do to the rampant sexism in which the Ghostbusters remake was attacked with?

 

[MOVIELORD101]

Serious question. Why do you do all the capitalization? It comes off super aggressive.

If you didn't like the 2016 version, that's cool. I know plenty of people who don't, including my bestie. But if others like it, why attack them over it? Why does anyone do that? 2016 was no affront to anyone. Feig reacting to a lot of chatter, that included a crap ton of sexism, isn't some black mark against him. It might be a mark against anyone who holds a grudge. Because that is some Captain Marvel deep seated hatred for nothing. Unless of course you were offended by the calling out of sexism.

It's emphasis rather than aggression really.

And for the record, only a small handful of people were being sexist. They were there, I'm not blind, but it wasn't the majority. Everyone else including myself thought it didn't look funny. He mistook the loud minority for everyone.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Paul Feig is a good comedy director, but he was the wrong fit for Ghostbusters. He clearly wasn't a fan and didn't understand what made it work outside of the basic "its a comedy about capturing ghosts and has a blue collar workers who are also nerds as its main cast" understanding, and he ultimately didn't have a story to tell. He was a square peg trying to fit into a round hole and didn't work.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's emphasis rather than aggression really.

And for the record, only a small handful of people were being sexist. They were there, I'm not blind, but it wasn't the majority. Everyone else including myself thought it didn't look funny. He mistook the loud minority for everyone.

I have no idea about your eyesight, but that is factually incorrect. But considering your belief in "forced girl power", a lot of it probably went over your head. Or you just agreed with it.

It amazes me how little understanding of empathy fanboys have. They will cry about what the big bad movie and it's director did to them. Like it somehow scarred their souls. But never consider what thousands upon thousands of comments of the bigoted variety can do to a person. And that's is what they all received on daily basis. Except for Leslie Jones, who got the sexism and the racism. And you take great offence to one statement against it, while you only brush off the out right bigotry? Why?

There is a relish some people have with attacking movies like Ghostbusters that does not come from simply not finding it funny. It goes far beyond that. What that is, well considering the reaction to such movies, feels pretty obvious.

 

[MOVIELORD101]

I have no idea about your eyesight, but that is factually incorrect. But considering your belief in "forced girl power", a lot of it probably went over your head. Or you just agreed with it.

It amazes me how little understanding of empathy fanboys have. They will cry about what the big bad movie and it's director did to them. Like it somehow scarred their souls. But never consider what thousands upon thousands of comments of the bigoted variety can do to a person. And that's is what they all received on daily basis. Except for Leslie Jones, who got the sexism and the racism. And you take great offence to one statement against it, while you only brush off the out right bigotry? Why?

There is a relish some people have with attacking movies like Ghostbusters that does not come from simply not finding it funny. It goes far beyond that. What that is, well considering the reaction to such movies, feels pretty obvious.

Uh, no it didn't. Plenty off people thought the movie looked like ****. Also, Feig is notoriously overly-feminist (look it up). Shooting the main villain in the crotch to beat him was a deliberate, dated attempt at such a thing for a series that never pulled crap like that beforehand. And bear in mind, I enjoyed Captain Marvel and I have absolutely no problem with the "All-female team" concept. It's just that, as Andrew said, Paul Feig had no passion for the series and just wanted to do whatever he felt like. The movie was not funny; THAT was my problem with it mainly. If your first joke in the trailer is having a ghost vomit ectoplasm all over Kirsten Wiig for no reason then that's not a good way to get people interested. THAT'S what set me off really more than anything.

 

[super85]

I thought the 2016 movie was extremely unfunny. It also looked ugly. The behavior of the director and some of its cast members was on about the same level as people whining about it on the internet. Also nobody shuts up in that movie, its yapping from one scene to the next.

All of the people involved in that film, director and actors, have done better work before and after that film. Its really a disappointing movie.

 

[Sithborg]

Paul Feig is a good comedy director, but he was the wrong fit for Ghostbusters. He clearly wasn't a fan and didn't understand what made it work outside of the basic "its a comedy about capturing ghosts and has a blue collar workers who are also nerds as its main cast" understanding, and he ultimately didn't have a story to tell. He was a square peg trying to fit into a round hole and didn't work.

While Ghostbusters is not quite as robust as other properties, there are still different ways and things to be a fan of Ghostbusters. Feig says he's a fan, he's a fan. Period. Now, that doesn't mean he will make a movie you will like. I am fairly certain the Godzilla movie I would like to make would be different from someone else's. And still be equally valid as fans.

For me, 2016 appealed to me, because it reminded me of the cartoon, which was the real source of my fandom as a kid. I even had a discussion with a childhood friend who is practically a brother in my family a few months ago about this. He is hyped for the movie. I am fairly blah about it. We played a ton of Ghostbusters as kids. Is one us a fake fan? No, just different parts of it appeal to us differently.

So feel free to not like 2016. I will be content to watch TFA discussion from the outside this time.

 

[flickchick85]

I'll be honest, I've got a lot of nostalgic love for Ghostbusters, but the marketing for this movie has done absolutely nothing for me. Despite getting the OG actors back, none of it feels especially Ghostbusters-y to me. Maybe it's the setting, idk. Hoping to be pleasantly surprised at this point.

 

[Prison Mike]

I haven’t seen any marketing for this movie other than what’s posted in this thread lol

 

[Doctor Jones]

I'll be honest, I've got a lot of nostalgic love for Ghostbusters, but the marketing for this movie has done absolutely nothing for me. Despite getting the OG actors back, none of it feels especially Ghostbusters-y to me. Maybe it's the setting, idk. Hoping to be pleasantly surprised at this point.

It all looks too serious for a Ghostbusters movie. There has barely been any jokes in these trailers. When it does it has more of a whimsical sense of humor which doesn't fit. I don't know how you get Spielbergian sentiment with something so goofy that was the original movie. Imagine if this movie was for Stripes instead of Ghosbusters.

I guess Ghosbusters are like mythic figures in this world now? When that kid tells the girl her grandfather was a Ghostbuster he might as well have told her he was a rat exterminator. At best those characters were anti heroes. You go from an original movie where Bill Murray stands around not giving a **** as he listens to the exposition to those events being looked at with this over reverence and seriousness.

 

[BeserkerHilf]

It all looks too serious for a Ghostbusters movie. There has barely been any jokes in these trailers. When it does it has more of a whimsical sense of humor which doesn't fit. I don't know how you get Spielbergian sentiment with something so goofy that was the original movie. Imagine if this movie was for Stripes instead of Ghosbusters.

I guess Ghosbusters are like mythic figures in this world now? When that kid tells the girl her grandfather was a Ghostbuster he might as well have told her he was a rat exterminator. At best those characters were anti heroes. You go from an original movie where Bill Murray stands around not giving a **** as he listens to the exposition to those events being looked at with this over reverence and seriousness.

I don't think that's necessarily fair: they come off as some dusty relic. It's been established in the film canon how quickly they are relegated to the backburner despite stopping cataclysmic events. Correct me if you've seen the movie already, but I'm getting the impression the kids find some of the equipment, happen to bring it to the attention of Rudd's super-niche-nerd character, sending them down the clickbait YT rabbit hole, and Rudd's enthusiasm influences "the magnitude" of being a Ghostbuster for the kids (based on the interaction after opening the Trap by the bus yard). Silly on paper, but plausible and dare I say kinda works for me?

Why Ghostbusters works so well (and why GB2 just kinda doesn't) is because it throws that Stripes vibe into the seriousness of the Gozer plot. It perfectly balances the comedy, sci-fi, and horror elements with charisma, confidence, and authenticity. You can rally behind these guys because everything on screen, from the equipment to the stakes, feels real/tangible and relatable. It's also why GB16 blows so hard; the comedy is so forced and it all feels so overproduce and yet so undercooked. I was honestly expecting this to skew towards the Goosebumps sensibility, so an Amblin film set in the film canon is a selling point for me.