Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Rate the Movie

  • Total voters
    59
What do we make about the future of Ghostbusters movies? Where do they go from here?
 
DyeLorean said:
What do we make about the future of Ghostbusters movies? Where do they go from here?
Click to expand...

The implication I got from the post-credit scene was that Winston now owns the firehouse, and he would possibly fund or reopen the firehouse for he next generation of Ghostbuster recruits. I think that scene was a little vague. But that's kind of what I got for it. I wasn't sure if the containment unit was meant to be a bad omen or not. But I guess it's just the containment unit is still there in the firehouse, and it's still got spirits loaded inside out of it.

I was a bit confused, because I recall Ray mentioning the firehouse became a Starbucks. So what happened there? Did the Starbucks get shut down because of the spirits in the basement? How did they keep people from going into the basement from getting to the containment unit and releasing the ghosts that were still THERE! I guess in the interim, the Starbucks shut down and Winston bought it back.
 
DyeLorean said:
What do we make about the future of Ghostbusters movies? Where do they go from here?
Click to expand...

For me this would be a fine conclusion. But knowing how everything needs to be a "cinematic universe" these days, I am sure they are planning various sequels.
 
I'm asking because according to Jason Reitman there are gonna be more.
 
Well, I saw this on Saturday and I was thrilled. The kids and I both loved it, and, as a GB fan from long ago, it hit all the right buttons. At this moment, I give it a 10...maybe that'll change after it settles...but I doubt it. I was just so pumped to see an actual Ghostbusters movie that I couldn't see straight. Very thrilled that it just...didn't suck...or end with them shooting the final ghost in the crotch.
 
DyeLorean said:
What do we make about the future of Ghostbusters movies? Where do they go from here?
Click to expand...
I can see the 4 kids (Phoebe, Trevor, Podcast & Lucky) sort of being the new team with both Ray & Winston in mentor/supporting roles. I can also see Gary (Paul Rudd) as part of the crew

Bill Murray will likely just have a small cameo but it can be used to bring back Oscar into the fold. Always figured Oscar would eventually become a future Ghostbuster

As for villains & threats, there’s loads of comics and Real Ghostbusters episodes to take inspiration from. If Jason Reitman already has ideas brewing then I’m excited to see where he takes it
 
BatLobster said:
It's honestly alarming to me that critics are this out of touch with the average moviegoer on this one. I think it unfortunately kind of highlights how polarized we are as a culture right now, that something that is this good in a refreshingly SIMPLE way is being twisted and contorted into some nefarious movie with an evil agenda (by some, not all).

I get that there's a discussion to be had about how our current pop culture landscape has become very reliant on nostalgia and we're not creating enough (or any) new franchises that will be worth reviving in 20 years. That is a separate convo that I am completely on board with. But as far as soft reboots go, this is exemplary IMO in terms of how to pull it off in a way that feels new, but makes sure to scratch the itch that is inherent in wanting to revisit a franchise as beloved as Ghostbusters. This was not a remake of GB at all. It shares plot mechanics in the third act, but big deal. That's just a movie being consistent with its own mythology, which is a good thing IMO. The first two acts are so different from anything we've seen in a Ghostbusters film that it completely earned it, and the emotional payoff was especially worth it.
Click to expand...

I liked the film but I don't think the reviews are that off, and the 60% region is about right for an RT score too. For me the film is on a knife edge between a real film and an easter egg hunt, so I can see why someone would fall on either side of that. And I can't blame the cynicism either. No matter how genuine the sentiment from Reitman and co may be, the film cannot fully escape being Sony franchise maintenance. You don't have to like the 2016 reboot to think that Afterlife's extreme reverence is in part a cynical studio reaction either, even if you appreciate changing course.

With some time to settle, I really wish there was a different villain involved. The film is much more interesting earlier on when we're learning new things and fighting a new ghost, and then becomes incredibly thin as it starts to replay the old hits. There's really no need to return to that well other than nostalgia. The last thing you should want for your exciting conclusion is for it to feel familiar. You could easily swap in any new paranormal threat to this story as is, and it would be all the better for it.

Regarding Egon.

... I'm in two minds about it. I probably would not have done it. I have found all similar attempts absolutely toe-curling in Star Wars and find this sort of actor 'resurrection' to be distasteful in general. But I must say I did find it kind of sweet here. At first at least. The shot of him opposite Phoebe was cute, the four guys lined up was pretty cool also, and I would have stopped there.

I think I'd give the film a 7. I'm going to see it again and am looking forward to it. I think many GB fans will love it, but I do think there's a roof on how much you enjoy this if you're not already attached.
 
henzINNIT said:
I liked the film but I don't think the reviews are that off, and the 60% region is about right for an RT score too. For me the film is on a knife edge between a real film and an easter egg hunt, so I can see why someone would fall on either side of that. And I can't blame the cynicism either. No matter how genuine the sentiment from Reitman and co may be, the film cannot fully escape being Sony franchise maintenance. You don't have to like the 2016 reboot to think that Afterlife's extreme reverence is in part a cynical studio reaction either, even if you appreciate changing course.

With some time to settle, I really wish there was a different villain involved. The film is much more interesting earlier on when we're learning new things and fighting a new ghost, and then becomes incredibly thin as it starts to replay the old hits. There's really no need to return to that well other than nostalgia. The last thing you should want for your exciting conclusion is for it to feel familiar. You could easily swap in any new paranormal threat to this story as is, and it would be all the better for it.

Regarding Egon.

... I'm in two minds about it. I probably would not have done it. I have found all similar attempts absolutely toe-curling in Star Wars and find this sort of actor 'resurrection' to be distasteful in general. But I must say I did find it kind of sweet here. At first at least. The shot of him opposite Phoebe was cute, the four guys lined up was pretty cool also, and I would have stopped there.

I think I'd give the film a 7. I'm going to see it again and am looking forward to it. I think many GB fans will love it, but I do think there's a roof on how much you enjoy this if you're not already attached.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't feel anything "studio" about this movie at all. GB 2016, now that felt like an overproduced studio comedy. There was enough of a personal touch on display here from Jason Reitman that I never felt like I was watching a film by committee. Even the third act- sure, it gets pretty safe, but by then the film had earned the good will for me to enjoy the ride. I'm not going to pretend that seeing terror dogs again (especially with fantastic integration of practical and vfx) wasn't really cool. A studio's committee-style attempt at this type of movie would've botched it and wouldn't have captured the tone as authetically as this movie did. This was beautifully handled by a talented director who was paying homage to his father's movie as well as the movies of his childhood. I have a few nitpicks and things I might've handled differently, but on the whole this is exactly the movie I wanted it to be.

As for Egon.
If you have the actor's family's blessing, and the blessing of everyone else involved with the original movie who knew Ramis well, I don't see the harm. It was touching. I freaking cried and I was not expecting to at all. And I didn't cry because I was seeing Harold Ramis on screen. It was Ray's apology to him that got me. The idea of reconciling with someone who has passed away was extremely moving, especially if you've ever gone through a family estrangement yourself or never got closure on something. That was what gut punched me. The fact that the visual effect was so convincing that it didn't even take me out of the film was the cherry on top.

I think there's a really thin line here between people projecting their own cynicism onto the film vs. the film itself being cynical. I didn't find it cynical at all. You could argue maybe it's over-earnest in its reverance, but again-- it feels authentic to me in that this is...literally a family revisiting their own franchise. It just so happens that I think Ivan Reitman was a very commercial filmmaker, and Jason, while his career to now has been more indie in nature-- proved here that he could step up to the plate and make a populist film that works in the way it's designed to work. If part of what we're doing here is analyzing the film's intentions, then I can't ignore the fact that there's a real unique personal perspective that Jason Reitman is able to bring to every frame of this.

As for there being a roof on how much you enjoy it if you're not already a Ghostbusters fan, I don't disagree. That's a feature, not a bug IMO. Because this film correctly reads the room and understands that there are already enough Ghostbusters fans in the world (multi-generation, not just 40 year old dudes- my buddy's 10 year old LOVED it) to give this thing life again. The box office results I think are proving that to be accurate. And I do think it will bring some new fans in as well.

Sorry, the rant wasn't all directed at you but I feel really strongly about it. This was a better attempt at what The Force Awakens did, than The Force Awakens, IMHO. It benefits a bit from the fact that I don't take the Ghostbusters as seriously as a piece of mythology than Star Wars, but I think this overall nostalgic "love letter" approach fit much better with Ghostbusters than it did with Star Wars, where I have much higher expectations of the world-building, cinematic innovation, and mythology. And I also think that approach is something that made it feel fresh and new for the franchise, whereas Star Wars always had that nostalgic sort of feel for it (harkening back to Saturday morning serials, etc) and that aspect became self-reflexive in the sequel trilogy.
 
Last edited:
GREEN =w= DAY said:
My pick for the next villain would be Samhain

latest
Click to expand...
I like that idea. Its ghost, go nutz with the concept and heck use the sequel to build to a big bad in the 3rd. Star wars failed to use the force awakens to spring board into an original idea sequel that didn't tick the fans off.
 
DyeLorean said:
What do we make about the future of Ghostbusters movies? Where do they go from here?
Click to expand...
Id love to see phoebe and her family move to new york to help rebuild the ghostbusters but who knows
 
Whatever the case is they can't keep Bill Murray for more than 12 hours on a set that isn't one from Wes Anderson so Ernie Hudson will get that steady paycheck he wanted since 1984.
 
Or you continue the indie director route and get Wes Anderson to direct the next Ghostbusters!
 
DyeLorean said:
Whatever the case is they can't keep Bill Murray for more than 12 hours on a set that isn't one from Wes Anderson so Ernie Hudson will get that steady paycheck he wanted since 1984.
Click to expand...
Murray may be notoriously hard to get a hold of but he'll play ball for Jason Reitman. I assume he can at least recognize that it was Ghostbusters, much more so than SNL or Stripes or even Caddyshack, that made him a household name. I can think of no other reason why he'd have agreed to be in the 2016 Ghostbusters or even be a part of the video game in the past. He clearly has a soft spot for the franchise, even if he's not as passionate about it as Aykroyd. I'm sure he also wanted to pay tribute to Harold Ramis as well.
 
I would love to see the franchise move forward with some fluidity. It doesn't necessarily have to just keep tracking the Spengler family, although I definitely think Phoebe can age into a main role working for the company-- probably developing new gear. I also think future films can lean into different genres and settings in the way this one leaned into that 80s Amblin Entertainment vibe. I think there's a lot of possibilities to grow it out organically and keep building the mythology without just doing the same type of movie over and over.
 
henzINNIT said:
I liked the film but I don't think the reviews are that off, and the 60% region is about right for an RT score too. For me the film is on a knife edge between a real film and an easter egg hunt, so I can see why someone would fall on either side of that. And I can't blame the cynicism either. No matter how genuine the sentiment from Reitman and co may be, the film cannot fully escape being Sony franchise maintenance. You don't have to like the 2016 reboot to think that Afterlife's extreme reverence is in part a cynical studio reaction either, even if you appreciate changing course.

With some time to settle, I really wish there was a different villain involved. The film is much more interesting earlier on when we're learning new things and fighting a new ghost, and then becomes incredibly thin as it starts to replay the old hits. There's really no need to return to that well other than nostalgia. The last thing you should want for your exciting conclusion is for it to feel familiar. You could easily swap in any new paranormal threat to this story as is, and it would be all the better for it.

Regarding Egon.

... I'm in two minds about it. I probably would not have done it. I have found all similar attempts absolutely toe-curling in Star Wars and find this sort of actor 'resurrection' to be distasteful in general. But I must say I did find it kind of sweet here. At first at least. The shot of him opposite Phoebe was cute, the four guys lined up was pretty cool also, and I would have stopped there.

I think I'd give the film a 7. I'm going to see it again and am looking forward to it. I think many GB fans will love it, but I do think there's a roof on how much you enjoy this if you're not already attached.
Click to expand...

I very much see this viewpoint, and I think people are being too overbearing about the reviews. Film critics are not a monolith.
 
DyeLorean said:
I get what they're saying. I don't particularly agree because I liked the movie for what it was, but I get them. I also think some of their ideas for what it could've been are very interesting and could've easily been introduced in Afterlife.
Click to expand...

I do as well oddly enough. Like I get what they are saying, but I didn't hate it like they did, LOL. Oh well.

And they do touch on some plot holes for the film that I agree with that don't make any sense. They don't kill he movie for me but my biggest problem with Afterlife is that it raises many questions that are never answered in a satisfying manner. This should've been what we saw at the end:

FEzd8SkXoAMsWxS
Instead, Winston returns to the firehouse and it's derelict and empty. No Starbucks to speak of. If Starbucks abandoned the place, there's no sign of it. [/spoiler
 
TheVileOne said:
I do as well oddly enough. Like I get what they are saying, but I didn't hate it like they did, LOL. Oh well.

And they do touch on some plot holes for the film that I agree with that don't make any sense. They don't kill he movie for me but my biggest problem with Afterlife is that it raises many questions that are never answered in a satisfying manner.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Rich Evans always seems the most level headed (Jay seems to hate every new blockbuster) and said he likes 75% of it.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll Poll
Resident Evil: Afterlife - Part 1
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Matt Mortem
Matt Mortem
T
  • Locked
Ghostbusters 3 - Part 4
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
60K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Ghostbusters 3 - Part 3
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
79K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Ghostbusters 3 - Part 2
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
38K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Ghostbusters 3 - Part 1
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
97K
Thread Manager
T

Staff online

Members online

Total: 5,145 (members: 15, guests: 5,130)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,265
Messages
22,075,535
Members
45,875
Latest member
shanandrews

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"