Jump to content
rllmuk
papalazarou

Ghostbusters -Afterlife

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, cassidy said:

Why are you focusing on this though. 

 

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


It does get a bit silly when a few background details, throwaway lines and MacGuffins get treated with a reverential level of detail and overanalysis that causes people to start arguing over it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We couldn't have the old gang running round new york again. They are too old.

 

I'm excited by this new take on it. They arent just getting a bunch of 30 year old men/women, and trying to recapture the magic of the original 2.

 

It could be a terrible mess, but that trailer brings me hope.

 

It's actually refreshing to be excited by a film after watching the trailer. Doesn't seem to happen much these days.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cassidy said:

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 

 

 


I’m going to give Watchmen another go. I’m mainly cynical about Lindelof and unearned twists, but will see. Only on ep3.

 

I also enjoyed ATC a lot despite it’s obvious shortcomings. 
 

As Alex W points out I’m probably in the minority and fans maybe take this stuff more seriously than the writers, but the show and comic established:

 

Inside the containment unit is a void-like limbo where captured ghosts still exist. 

A ghost working with the team as part of Egon’s research.

Explored family members of each of the characters and Egon’s relationship with Janine.

The game introduced links between the different types of slime and Shandor buildings across NYC, bridging the two films.

 

Monster of the week concepts such as:

A museum cult summoning cthulhu.

A ghost who didn’t know he was a ghost being haunted by his own alter-ego... pretty high concept for a kids tv show.

A billionaire using tech to open a portal to the afterlife in order to transport all of his property and fortune with him.

A wealthy eccentric offering a fortune to whoever captures their ghost after death. 
Rival competitors using faulty equipment or faking the capture of ghosts.

Interdimensional travel.

Egon teaching university classes on ghost capture to students.

Exploring a wide variety of supernatural folklore - they don’t all end with crossing streams and busting a ghost.

 

The worst and most boring thing you could do with this franchise is to lean heavily on the original movie.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DeciderVT said:


Of course, they're frequently tedious misogynistic, entitled man-babies. What's your point?

 

Oh, and I would hazard a guess that 99.99% of people going to watch this film do not give a flying crap about the TV show or the comic.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, if it captures the spirit of the original then I’ll be happy. I’m not arsed if it’s kids, women or whoever doing the busting, as long as they get a good story together.

 

I absolutely love the original, but it’s been that long, I’m not against them trying new things to bring in a new audience.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

Oh, and I would hazard a guess that 99.99% of people going to watch this film do not give a flying crap about the TV show or the comic.


The comic is profitable enough to be running for a decade.

 

And film-goers don’t need to care, the show/comic are evidence there is material to mine in this concept beyond the original cast & movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Harsin said:

EXTERIOR. Overhead shot of a city at night.

 

Voiceover: This city used to be safe.

 

Warner Bros logo

 

Shot of masked men running smashing a shop window.

 

Voiceover: The law used to mean something in this city.

 

Legendary Pictures logo

 

Chris Pine walking through the debris of the shop in the daytime, turns to a person unsee.

 

Chris Pine: 'It can again'.

 

EXTERIOR: Moodily lit abandoned building.

 

An out of focus figure walks through the dilapidated rooms. They run a gloved hand over a dust covered goldfish bowl. A panning shot of a rusted gun case, the letters TACKLEB... just visible.

 

Chris Pine: You in?


Sorrowful sounding piano refrain of DAH DAH DAH DAH DUH DAH.

 

Reveal that the person Chris Pine was talking to was an elderly Michael Winslow.

 

Michael Winslow: /makes a noise like helicopter and then an old modem.

 

P O L I C E   A C A D E M Y

 

Brief shot of Chris Pine and Michael Winslow looking up at a dim neon sign, that lights up to say THE BLUE OYSTER.

 

Fall 2021

 

I'm in!  When is it out on Blu (Oyster) Ray?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm someone that absolutely adores the original Ghostbusters... so much so I actually own a replica proton pack, ghost trap, PKE meter, ecto goggles and uniform. :unsure:

 

I always kinda felt that one of the things the original had going for it was that, in terms of plot, it was a fairly straight-up sci-fi blockbuster that just happened to have a main cast made up almost entirely of highly-rated comedians of the time. Whereas the 2016 reboot felt like it set out to be a zany comedy right from the start, and it's just not very good at all.

 

I've got high hopes for this one. I don't see any problem with making it more a straight adventure movie, and the original cast are too old now to be Ghostbusters. Besides, the extra scene at the end of the German trailer shows there's definitely gags in it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cool Ben said:

I want to show my daughter the original, she is 5, do you think that's a bit young?  I seem to remember some sexy scenes.

 


I think the library ghost scare might be more of an issue. But I think it’s fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cool Ben said:

I want to show my daughter the original, she is 5, do you think that's a bit young?  I seem to remember some sexy scenes.

 


There is some sexy bits, but they went totally over my head as a 7 year old when I first saw it. The zombie taxi driver however traumatised me for weeks.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cool Ben said:

I want to show my daughter the original, she is 5, do you think that's a bit young?  I seem to remember some sexy scenes.

 

We showed it to a film club of 12 and upwards and to be honest some scenes were touch and go with that crowd, and apart from the "sexy" scene I remember a couple of sweary bits too. Personally I wouldn't reccomend for a 5 year old. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the scary bits are going to be more of a problem, I think.

 

My 10-year-old daughter has seen it and is fine with it, but I tried once with her when she was much younger and she was traumatised by the "scary doggie". :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Cool Ben said:

I want to show my daughter the original, she is 5, do you think that's a bit young?  I seem to remember some sexy scenes.

 

Let Master “Simon” Bates help you decide... however, as a PG you’re right that there may be some “sexy scenes” or “brief nudity”

 


BTW my 9 year old has seen it countless times, first time was when he was about 6. Last time was for the 35th anniversary in the cinema a couple of months ago. Quite poignant because he was exactly the same age as me when I saw it when it was first released!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The librarian scene! A five year old?! 
 

Fuggedabowtit. 
 

Watching Ghostbusters 2 now on Netflix. Siskel and Ebert were partially right - a big part of what makes these movies so great is watching these three guys (sorry Winston) interact with each other, their brilliant chemistry. But they’re also really well conceived sci-fi action blockbusters with plots that hum, set pieces that delight and a high concept - ghost exterminators with nuclear generators strapped to their backs - that’s really appealing.

 

The latter aspect may not be enough for most people but there’s clearly a reason why, divorced of the actors and writers, the concept resonates with people enough to produce cartoons and comics. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

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: )

 

the sequel, 2012, is better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching the first Ghosbusters now, as this thread together with watching the Ghostbusters episode of The Movies That Made Us on Netflix tugged on the nostalgia feels a little too hard.

I've just noticed something that bugs me everytime I see it used in films.  It's the bit when the Ecto 1 pulls out of the station house during their first call to the Sedwick Hotel.  They used the comedy speed up technique.  It's so stupid and sticks out like a sore thumb.  Movie ruined.

 

Not really, it's still so good.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Parksey said:

 

I want the original three to be losers. If Egon is involved due to CGI wizardry, I don't want him to be a wise old Obi Wan-style force ghost.  I want him to be a loser; Egon was a loser. 

 

I agree with you, but, point of order. Egon was a true nerd, which by the 80's standard means he was seen as a loser, but he didn't mind a bit. As opposed to, say, Ray Stanz, who was a geek and had just enough awareness to know he was a loser.

 

Man, I'm overthinking this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parksey said:

And that third problem is sort of tied up in how the franchise is revered in this way. I despair at fandom sticking "lore" and "canon" in where it's not needed. Ghostbusters doesn't need lore - the first film, at it's heart, is quite a basic, classic comedy set up, as I previously said. You have four losers who can't do get anything right, who have a crazy idea that some how hits lucky. It's simple and feels like a comedy sketch, most probably due to the franchise's SNL roots. The set up itself has legs, the script helps it along, but what elevates it is the chemistry of the cast. The "lore" and reverence has come afterwards, a lot of it driven by fans. 


In general I think your posts speaks for the majority of people and how the mainstream perceives the original and the nostalgia bait in this trailer... but a small correction... the “lore” mostly came from Dan Aykroyd and J. Michael Straczynski (Babylon 5, Amazing Spider-man, Superman).

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.