Ghostbusters: Afterlife

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

What does it mean to be "overly-feminist"?

If a man had shot him in the crotch you'd be good? You didn't have enough "boy movies" that a dude getting shot in the crotch by a woman didn't offend your sense?

When you have to say, "I enjoyed Captain Marvel" and "I have no problem with the "All-Female team" concept, that's some straight up black friend nonsense.

Again, I ask you. Why do you find more offence in a movie shooting a dude in the crotch, then the mountains of abuse the cast and crew took? Where is your empathy for them?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

As someone who is hyped for this, I agree. I think I am so hyped because it feels like Spielberg does Ghostbusters. Which of course, wouldn't feel much like Ghostbusters. More E.T. and of course Stranger Things. I adore that stuff, so I'm good. But I also get how others feel.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

Those mouthy women, am I right?

The idea that the director and cast members were on the level of constant bigotry and death threats is such an obvious lie, I don't even know how you were able to write it.

 

[Doctor Jones]

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. Unless you've seen the movie, 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?

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 because the comedy is so forced and it all feels so overproduce and yet somehow 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.

I see where you mean them being dusty relics fits into that blue collar Ghostbusters way about it. That could work. I just don't agree with the approach where it's being executed with an over reverence to them as if they're some superhero myth. It's one thing to dig up some old fossils, but judging by all the trailers, the interviews from the makers and the reviews, this all seems to be at odds with the irreverence of the original movie. I get Ghostbusters has the Gozer stuff unlike Stripes, but it's just the Gozer stuff is merely an obstacle for them to solve. The mythology was just a means to an end to build stakes and make you care, it wasn't the point.

That tension worked because they weren't really cut out for it. They were just exterminators and suddenly they were plunged into this intricate Lovecraftian-esque mythology. Even when they do save the city, it's less because they're traditional heroes and more of "these guys??"

Now suddenly sleazy, lazy, and cowardly Peter Venkman is like Luke Skywalker? What made it funny and function was that they weren't classical heroes to be mythologized.

 

[BeserkerHilf]

I see where you mean them being dusty relics fits into that blue collar Ghostbusters way about it. That could work. I just don't agree with the approach where it's being executed with an over reverence to them as if they're some superhero myth. It's one thing to dig up some old fossils, but judging by all the trailers, the interviews from the makers and the reviews, this all seems to be at odds with the irreverence of the original movie. The mythology was just a means to an end to build stakes and make you care, it wasn't the point. I get Ghostbusters has the Gozer stuff unlike Stripes, but it's just the Gozer stuff is merely an obstacle for them to solve.

That tension worked because they weren't really cut out for it. They were just exterminators and suddenly they were plunged into this intricate Lovecraftian-esque mythology. Even when they do save the city, it's less because they're traditional heroes and more of "these guys??" The humor comes from the fact they're schmucks and the situations amplify that.

I also agree the PR push for this movie is on a level usually reserved for Golden Age superheroes, but that's just this new age of marketing for you. Real "overcompensation for GB16" type stuff.

Regarding "schmucks", that's a cynically reductive description. At the end of the day, they're still Ivory Tower Types thrown into Blue Collar work. The movie does really well to show them establish themselves as reputable (to everyone but Peck), or still slowly winning over sceptics like Dana and the Mayor. Ray and Egon aren't schmucks, and Venkman is an opportunist at worst. "Not cut out for it" really sells short guys who built proton packs and containment fields from scratch to launch a paranormal investigation business. If anything, the tension stems from biting off more than they could chew, and rising to the occasion.

[Ugh: Obligatory "Thank you for ****ing attending my TEDTalk"]

 

[Doctor Jones]

I also agree the PR push for this movie is on a level usually reserved for Golden Age superheroes, but that's just this new age of marketing for you. Real "overcompensation for GB16" type stuff.

Regarding "schmucks", that's a cynically reductive description. At the end of the day, they're still Ivory Tower Types thrown into Blue Collar work. The movie does really well to show them establish themselves as reputable (to everyone but Peck), or still slowly winning over sceptics like Dana and the Mayor. Ray and Egon aren't schmucks, and Venkman is an opportunist at worst. "Not cut out for it" really sells short guys who built proton packs and containment fields from scratch to launch a paranormal investigation business. If anything, the tension stems from biting off more than they could chew, and rising to the occasion.

[Ugh: Obligatory "Thank you for ****ing attending my TEDTalk"]

I think we just differ on their treatment in the first movie that makes them heroes to be mythified in this movie. They're scientists yes, but I wouldn't go as far to say that inherently makes them Ivory Tower types in the context of that movie. They're executed as more undervalued but brilliant and schlubby scientists who decide to start their own business. Combine with those two things, and how these things were used to utilize the talents of Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis, they're more ordinary. Even if they saved the city, they're technically heroes yes, but in their own way. That doesn't necessarily make them legends.

The Ecto 1 and proton packs were brilliant constructions by Egon, but it wasn't the Mona Lisa. It was goofy stuff carried by great writing.

 

[DarkKnight88]

But legends are created with time. From what I’m seeing in the trailers, it’s people Paul Rudd’s age who were kids when the Ghostbusters fought the Marshmallow Man that have a reverence for them. Of course they do, as we do with whoever we looked up to as kids.

But Ray is still working in his book store so it doesn’t look like they’re living up the life! The younger kids are unaware of them, until they find out it’s part of their lineage, so of course they’re going to be amazed by it all!

It’s been brought up before but also changing genres between sequels isn’t a bad thing. Alien went from haunted house horror to action military movie in Aliens to great success. It’s keeping the heart and spirit of the first that’s important.

One thing I wanted to do is set the table for Ghostbusters as a franchise to have all kinds of movies,” he said. “I want to see all those movies. And we need to do something that really was about setting a foundation and bringing the original 1984 story to a place so that other stories could bloom. I want to see the scary movies, the funny films. I want to see movies involving the original cast. I want to see more movies involving people we haven’t even seen yet. I want to go to new dimensions. I want to go to other cultures and countries. There’s so many places for Ghostbusters to go. The question is, what’s the starting place? And that’s what Afterlife is about. It’s about these generations making amends with each other in a way that brings one story to close and starts another one.”

Why Are Ghostbusters Movies Hard to Make? Jason Reitman Explains

 

[Mandon Knight]

I was 9 when the first film came out and I'll admit, it has a massive emotional 'pull' on me, as many of the 80's films do, for people my age (I'm now 46) and this new film is absolutely playing on people my age for part of it's core audience and I'll definitely be watching this new film for all the reasons it wants me to.

 

[Doctor Jones]

But legends are created with time. From what I’m seeing in the trailers, it’s people Paul Rudd’s age who were kids when the Ghostbusters fought the Marshmallow Man that have a reverence for them. Of course they do, as we do with whoever we looked up to as kids.

But Ray is still working in his book store so it doesn’t look like they’re living up the life! The younger kids are unaware of them, until they find out it’s part of their lineage, so of course they’re going to be amazed by it all!

It’s been brought up before but also changing genres between sequels isn’t a bad thing. Alien went from haunted house horror to action military movie in Aliens to great success. It’s keeping the heart and spirit of the first that’s important.



Why Are Ghostbusters Movies Hard to Make? Jason Reitman Explains

I just don't associate them becoming legends with them because that's not the type of story that Ghostbusters was that would lead them to that. They were goofy characters. It makes more sense with a Luke Skywalker whose character arc was the Hero's Journey, a more serious approach where he was the new hope to save the galaxy. Ghostbusters wasn't that type of story. It's about three schlubs starting a business who just happened to save the city. I don't know how a guy who collects spores, molds and funguses becomes a legend unironically.

Aliens is a far cry from this. Walter Hill and David Giler wanted to tell a Southern Comfort, war movie in an Alien movie. That's inspired. And they came up with that because they're well read, learned men who don't create stories out of infatuations with a movie. Imagine if Jake Scott just made an Alien sequel equivalent to how Reitman is doing this. It's deeper than just changing genres or settings. The small down setting is a good idea, it's just Reitman's philosophy in executing it all is wrong.

The root of the problem is that this is just another example of an audience making a movie about what a movie meant to them instead instead of breaking the original down on its own terms and telling an original story in a franchise. I'm just sick of these meta narratives about people's own fandom. It's indulgent, lazy, and uncreative. It's gotten to the point of high budget fan filmmaking and this might be the worst example because now we have a fan who is actually the son of the original's director. The reverence takes on a new dimension. Reitman is a great filmmaker, but from what I've seen, he was the wrong guy to make it because he's too close to it.

 

[DarkKnight88]

I just don't associate them becoming legend with them because that's not the type of story that Ghostbusters was that would lead them to that. They were goofy characters. It makes more sense with a Luke Skywalker whose character arc was the Hero's Journey, a more serious approach where he was the new hope to save the galaxy. Ghostbusters wasn't that type of story. It's about three schlubs starting a business who just happened to save the city. I don't know how a guy who collects spores, molds and funguses becomes a legend unironically.

But you’re missing the part where they started as schlubs but become celebrities. Crowds are cheering them, they’re recognized on the street, Larry King is talking about them, they’re on TV. They have a fanbase in the film!

Being a comedy doesn’t change the fact that they would still be revered by a certain subset of people 30 years later. That makes sense in the world of the movie. I think you’re associating comedy as if we’re not suppose to take any of this seriously.

 

[Doctor Jones]

But you’re missing the part where they started as schlubs but become celebrities. Crowds are cheering them, they’re recognized on the street, Larry King is talking about them, they’re on TV.

Being a comedy doesn’t change the fact that they would still be revered by a certain subset of people. I think you’re associating comedy as if we’re not suppose to take any of this seriously.

And they were still schlubs when they were celebrities and heroes. Again, the construction of the film wasn't about them becoming celebrities, it's about starting a business. The fame was just a nice positive change of autonomy for the protagonists. The fame helped them grow their business. That's what I mean. Even when people cheered them on to save the city, they still had to climb those stairs, THAT'S why the movie works so well. Because they're schlubs fundamentally. You don't take those people who cheered them on and use that as justification for reverence of this movie when that was never the point of the movie in the first place.

The first Ghostbusters narratively has no trace of sentimentality or importance. It's a bunch of goofy crap! It's a comedy classic for this reason.

 

[InvisibleWoman]

I'm going to be controversial here and say I think I prefer Ghostbusters 2 over Ghostbusters 1. I love how instead of going down the obvious route of making them revered "heroes" after the first one, they get sued by pretty much everyone and end up entertaining kids at parties to make ends meet (and the kids have already moved onto the next big thing - He-Man)

Also for me it has a better villain as I genuinely found Vigo terrifying as a kid and there was Janosz and his freaky light up eyes... such a simple special effect but so sinister.

The courtroom scene was just brilliant ("Kitten, I think what I'm saying, is that sometimes, **** happens, someone has to deal with it, and who ya gonna call?") and the Statue of Liberty scene might still be one of my favourite movie scenes ever.

I know it's not perfect and it certainly has its flaws, but I have so much love for it.

I'm hoping that I have as much love for the third one. I feel quite emotional about it. I even have some wall art of Bill Murray as Venkman in my house so that shows how much this means to me. 90% chance I will cry.

 

[JubJub86]

I wouldn't say it reaches the levels of the first one, but yeah, GB2 has always got way too much hate. That and Predator 2.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Back in the late 1989 when Ghostbusters 2 was hitting theaters, the cast went on Oprah to promote the film. In the audience was a young Chris Farley, who at the time was performing with his improv group Second City Stage in Chicago.

Find it and other pics like it here:

From Out Of The Past... The History In Pictures Thread

 

[B]

Not gonna lie, I shed a few tears of joy listening to Bill Murray at the end

 

[samsnee]

Back in the late 1989 when Ghostbusters 2 was hitting theaters, the cast went on Oprah to promote the film. In the audience was a young Chris Farley, who at the time was performing with his improv group Second City Stage in Chicago.

Find it and other pics like it here:

From Out Of The Past... The History In Pictures Thread

Very cool

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Very cool

For a time GB3 was gonna be Dan as Ray training Farley as a new Ghostbuster. Like so many scripts he was working on it never got beyond the page.

 

[Vaibow]

I'm going to be controversial here and say I think I prefer Ghostbusters 2 over Ghostbusters 1. I love how instead of going down the obvious route of making them revered "heroes" after the first one, they get sued by pretty much everyone and end up entertaining kids at parties to make ends meet (and the kids have already moved onto the next big thing - He-Man)

Also for me it has a better villain as I genuinely found Vigo terrifying as a kid and there was Janosz and his freaky light up eyes... such a simple special effect but so sinister.

The courtroom scene was just brilliant ("Kitten, I think what I'm saying, is that sometimes, **** happens, someone has to deal with it, and who ya gonna call?") and the Statue of Liberty scene might still be one of my favourite movie scenes ever.

I know it's not perfect and it certainly has its flaws, but I have so much love for it.

I'm hoping that I have as much love for the third one. I feel quite emotional about it. I even have some wall art of Bill Murray as Venkman in my house so that shows how much this means to me. 90% chance I will cry.

I remember more of GB2 growing up than the original and it actually suprised me, watching them back as an adult, the style of humour here and there - the ghost BJ scene one obvious moment. I preferred the cartoon anyways.

Thing is, what kid enjoy compared to adults, it's a hard nut to crack getting both.
This looks good to me, the 3rd and I feel we all hype things up over time and forgive things... so I feel this 3rd movie has captured what a lot of us have raised GB to be, like in my mind the two movies are great and deserve 'Spielberg' style attention... when in reality, it's not... but, I don't need to tell myself that.

 

[Captain Tired]

I also prefer GBII, I think.

 

[BatLobster]

Idk, I don't think this movie is going to make me ugly cry man tears or anything but it looks like a lot of fun, and I'm not going to pretend that revisiting that world and seeing what's happening there 30 years later won't make for a cool movie.

The Ghostbusters themselves were goofballs, particularly Murray, but there was an earnestness there as well to what Ramis, Aykroyd and Hudson brought to it. It was a unique genre bender and if you take the comedy out of it, Ghostbusting is still a really cool horror/sci-fi premise. It has iconic props, vehicles, imagery. It's fair game to treat it like a franchise and pass the torch IMO.

 

[Asr]

It has iconic props, vehicles, imagery.

and music! Some of the original score and Ray Parker Jr's song are both iconic with the franchise.

 

[BatLobster]

Ghostbusters is literally a franchise about a franchise. Before franchises were cool.

 

[Broseph44]

I always loved Ghostbusters II just as much as the original honestly, I never understood the hate. But to each their own.

 

[samsnee]

I liked it too. The ending isn’t as good as the first, but that Bobby Brown song was cool

 

[super85]

Those mouthy women, am I right?

The idea that the director and cast members were on the level of constant bigotry and death threats is such an obvious lie, I don't even know how you were able to write it.

Everybody in that film are constantly talking. Its obnoxious. The men in it are the same way, there is hardly a silent moment in that film. RLM did a hillarious video on that. I think its a horrible film.