Jump to content
rllmuk
papalazarou

Ghostbusters -Afterlife

Recommended Posts

Yeah, definitely Bill Hader. 

 

Maybe Paul Rudd, Bill Hader, Kate McKinnon and Lil Rel Howery?  McKinnon can be absolutely hilarious, she was wasted in the reboot.  And Howery was amazing in Get Out.

 

+ Maya Rudolph as Janine

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately that trailer reeks of Sony desperately trying again to make a Ghosbusters "cinematic universe" happen, with no actual understanding of what made the first film (especially) work.

 

Compare it to the trailer for the original, take away the Ecto-1 and gadgets from the trailer for the new one and there's practically nothing connecting them, especially in tone.

 

 

It feels more like a sequel to E.T. than Ghostbusters.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PK said:

 

 

Yeah exactly this.  The idea of 'Ghostbusters lore' is bizarre


“Sony should make a Ghostbusters movie for the real fans.”

 

”No not like that.”

  • Upvote 6
  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of lore in Ghostbusters is not bizarre, it’s something that has been part of the series since inception. Aykroyd is obsessed with this paranormal  stuff, there is ‘lore’ in the series and comics about how the equipment like the containment unit works, the different classes of ghosts in Tobin’s Spirit guide, there are recurring characters, macguffins, universes, teams. It’s no different from Star Trek , Buffy or a fucking FROM game having ‘lore’.


If Ghostbusters is on a par with Police Academy to you, then either you’re unaware or don’t care for how the spin-offs successfully expanded the universe, but that probably means you don’t get to go around telling people what Ghostbusters should be.

  • Downvote 7
  • Empathy 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think sequels have to reflect the tone of the original. All I want is a good film, the trailer looks intriguing.

 

Aliens is nothing like Alien and is awesome.

T2 is nothing like T1 and is awesome.

I also have a soft spot for 2010 (shut up it’s good :lol: )

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gone fishin' said:

Unfortunately that trailer reeks of Sony desperately trying again to make a Ghosbusters "cinematic universe" happen, with no actual understanding of what made the first film (especially) work.

 

Compare it to the trailer for the original, take away the Ecto-1 and gadgets from the trailer for the new one and there's practically nothing connecting them, especially in tone.

 

 

It feels more like a sequel to E.T. than Ghostbusters.

 

Yessir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s fun to reverse engineer Sony’s logic. The previous film had loads of people going on about how it wasn’t part of the same timeline as the original and didn’t fit the lore and so on, so of course Sony swerved hard in that direction without considering what was wrong with the movie or seriously considering what is quintessentially Ghostbusters or what aspect they wanted to recreate out of the dozens of things a Ghostbusters movie could be. Or maybe I’m being cynical.

 

That said, for now I’m quite happy for this to be whatever it winds up being, and will resist reading too much in to a standard trailer format that tells us nothing about the tone of the actual film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jon_cybernet said:

What would be your picks? 

 

Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Jack Black and Karen Gillan.

 

Nailed. it. :ph34r:

 

I was joking at first, but now I would so watch that movie.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, James Lyon said:

Donald Glover' would make my choice as a new Ghostbuster.


All three characters from Atlanta, like the actual characters but called Venkman, Spengler and Stantz, plus one token white guy please. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Popo said:


All three characters from Atlanta, like the actual characters but called Venkman, Spengler and Stantz, plus one token white guy please. 

Token white woman surely 

 

Though I'd be on board 100% for the Atlanta cast including Zazie to be the ghostbusters. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, grindmouse said:

The idea of lore in Ghostbusters is not bizarre, it’s something that has been part of the series since inception. Aykroyd is obsessed with this paranormal  stuff, there is ‘lore’ in the series and comics about how the equipment like the containment unit works, the different classes of ghosts in Tobin’s Spirit guide, there are recurring characters, macguffins, universes, teams. It’s no different from Star Trek , Buffy or a fucking FROM game having ‘lore’.


If Ghostbusters is on a par with Police Academy to you, then either you’re unaware or don’t care for how the spin-offs successfully expanded the universe, but that probably means you don’t get to go around telling people what Ghostbusters should be.

 

I think I posted this earlier in this thread, but this review by Siskel and Ebert sums up what really worked about the original Ghostbusters. It was the chemistry between the three main actors. The fact that they were "bustin' ghosts" is almost secondary, they even say they're looking forward to hopefully more films with the same actors, but not necessarily Ghostbusters sequels.

 

 

It's like with the new trailer they've thought "you know what was wrong with the last Ghostbuster reboot? Not enough fan service. Let's just add in a load of old gubbins from the first one, appearing randomly in a tonally different film. That will make the fans cheer on cue like a proton pack has just been fired up their arse" and again completely missing the point of what makes the first film a classic.

 

The trailer for the new one feels even more cynical than one of those Disney Star Wars film reveals where the amassed crowd consisting of grown adults dressed as fucking Yoda go apeshit over *insert_original_Star_Wars_character_or_item_reference clinically appearing every 30 seconds.

 

Or maybe it's what we should expect of all remakes/reboots/sequels in the light of the recent Star Wars films that need to clear $1 billion in ticket sales in order to be considered a success.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alex W. said:


“Sony should make a Ghostbusters movie for the real fans.”

 

”No not like that.”

 

I'm not really sure how you've managed to understand that from my post.  The concept of "real fans" for Ghostbusters is bizarre as well. 

 

1 hour ago, grindmouse said:

The idea of lore in Ghostbusters is not bizarre, it’s something that has been part of the series since inception. Aykroyd is obsessed with this paranormal  stuff, there is ‘lore’ in the series and comics about how the equipment like the containment unit works, the different classes of ghosts in Tobin’s Spirit guide, there are recurring characters, macguffins, universes, teams. It’s no different from Star Trek , Buffy or a fucking FROM game having ‘lore’.


If Ghostbusters is on a par with Police Academy to you, then either you’re unaware or don’t care for how the spin-offs successfully expanded the universe, but that probably means you don’t get to go around telling people what Ghostbusters should be.

 

Literally nobody is telling you "what Ghostbusters should be".  Do you really need the prefix "in my opinion" added to everyone's posts on a forum?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @gone fishin' I don’t think they’re trying to recreate the original movie. I think they’re trying to re-establish the concept for a new generation, whilst pleasing older fans, so they can tell new stories with the IP. As successful as GB2 & RGB were, they mishandled both, and Murray blocking further sequels may have been a blessing, but it caused the momentum to fall away.

 

As for the new movie tonally ripping off this or that... it looks like a Jason Reitman movie, I don’t think there is anything cynical about his approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, PK said:

 

I'm not really sure how you've managed to understand that from my post.  The concept of "real fans" for Ghostbusters is bizarre as well.


I didn’t mean it to be taken too seriously. There are serious Ghostbusters fans though (one of those mystery fandoms you don’t expect to exist) and I would not be terribly surprised if they were making a movie that tries to play to whatever Sony thinks they want, as a hypercorrection to the first new film. That’s probably as close to a point as I want to make.

 

Ghostbusters is a lot of things - a hugely commercial 1980s comedy of a style and structure nobody today remembers how to make, a nerdy pastiche of Ackroyd’s deeply researched paranormal lore, a popular 1980s-90s cartoon - and I don’t envy anyone trying to make “more Ghostbusters” with that background.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, moosegrinder said:

Kiiiiiiind of, there's an episode where they've just got back from the fight with Gozer and the suits that are covered with ectoplasmic marshmallow and become evil versions of the Ghostbusters. This was before Ghostbusters 2 came out, mind.

 

The movies exist in the cartoon as movies about what happened to the cartoon characters. There's an episode that has a scene where the RGB characters are reading a newspaper article about the upcoming film and talking about the real-life actors (Murray, Ramis etc) who'll be playing them.

 

God it must have been at least 30 years ago I saw that. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rush to decry films as garbage based on a TEASER trailer is really maddening.

 

The tone of this trailer was different to what I was expecting, but at the same time very intriguing.

 

How it ties in to the original 2 movies will be interesting to see - the stuff in the trailer may well all be from the first act of this film so it's very likely not be representative of the movie as a whole.

 

The main thing is it looks like it has come from a place of reverence and love for the original, rather than the 2016 reboot which was just bizarrely bad - it neither had reverence for the original, nor an understanding of what made it funny, meaning it ended up being a bad film - no nostalgia, no drama, no comedy.

 

If this takes the original more seriously than you think it should have been taken, fine, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so.  Given those involved i would say it's much more likely those making this understand the original correctly than a bunch of hot-take nobheads on twitter. 

 

The film won't succeed off the back of reverence and nostalgia alone, though.  It will succeed by getting the kids of today interested in a way the kids of the 80's were interested in the original 2, and it will do that by simply being a good, exciting, fun adventure movie.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony of @grindmouse in this thread in comparison to his posts in the Watchmen thread cannot be lost on him can it.

 

Anyway as a fan more ghostbusters is a good thing. Though who gives a fuck about my opinion cos I enjoy the 2016 movie too and love Kate Mckinnon in particular in it. 

 

Neg away everyone 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has been an eye opener for me.  There is so little joy here and this forum generally. Where is the fun, the excitement...the miserabilists appear (and I acknowledge being one at times) and kill discussion stone dead.  Whats the point.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Alex W. said:


I didn’t mean it to be taken too seriously. There are serious Ghostbusters fans though (one of those mystery fandoms you don’t expect to exist) and I would not be terribly surprised if they were making a movie that tries to play to whatever Sony thinks they want, as a hypercorrection to the first new film. That’s probably as close to a point as I want to make.

 

Ghostbusters is a lot of things - a hugely commercial 1980s comedy of a style and structure nobody today remembers how to make, a nerdy pastiche of Ackroyd’s deeply researched paranormal lore, a popular 1980s-90s cartoon - and I don’t envy anyone trying to make “more Ghostbusters” with that background.

 

 

Sorry for the ratty response, completely misunderstood your post.  Yeah I really didn't expect a Ghostbusters fandom who are interested in the 'lore' to exist, I always thought one of the great things about the first two was the way they completely undermine that sort of thing, like making Gozer the Demi-God Destructor of Worlds a marshmallow mascot, or having them step a foot to the right when a backpack-sized nuclear reactor sounds like it might explode.  "We don't care about the actual properties of the proton packs and neither should you" is what that says to me.  It's even funnier when you know that Aykroyd actually thinks all of that shite is important.

 

Honestly I was quite looking forward to the 2016 reboot initially, because it sounded like they'd perfectly understood the original two films by casting a group of comedians who'd worked together a lot before.  But they went way too far down the improv route, and could have done with tighter directing & editing, and it all just felt like a mess.  A hypercorrection away from comedy to a fantasy adventure that treats the Ghostbusters like the Jedi is going to miss the point as well, I think.

 

My hope is that whoever edited the trailer for this is targeting the Ghostbusters fandom, but the actual film is a solid comedy about hunting ghosts.

 

24 minutes ago, cassidy said:

Anyway as a fan more ghostbusters is a good thing. Though who gives a fuck about my opinion cos I enjoy the 2016 movie too and love Kate Mckinnon in particular in it. 

 

There are glimpses in that film of how really great she could have been if they'd had a bit more structure.  She's so funny, I love her

 

 

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fierce Poodle said:

Ghostbusters ‘lore’. Fucking hell, I’ve heard it all now.

Why are you focusing on this though. 

 

Any genre media has lore and canon and some people like this what's the issue 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original Ghostbusters was basically a happy accident, one of those rare alignments of casting, concept, setting and music where lighting struck and a load of completely disparate elements came together successfully. It’s almost impossible to recreate something like that, as we’ve seen with almost everything they’ve tried since besides a handful of scenes in the sequel. 

 

I watched the original for the first time in years a few days ago and was struck by two things; how blue collar the whole thing is and how the film basically plays Venkman as an opportunistic con artist for at least half the runtime. That’s what makes it so funny initially and one of the things they’ve struggled with since, you can’t really roll back to that comedy in a universe where it’s firmly established ghosts are real. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.