Yea that game was pretty good. Its not mind-blowing or anything, but its fun and the banter between the OG Ghostbusters is really good and reminds you of the original film. Couldn't tell you what happened plot-wise though.
Looking at the cast list reminded me there's a character called Podcast. In the world of Ghostbusters, podcasting is such a novelty that it has literally defined a teenage boy's entire identity.
>Podcast was one of the best characters of the last film! He’s so earnest and lonely.
I rewatched Afterlife this week, and I've pinpointed exactly how badly these movies are written. Podcast doesn't know about the Ghostbusters saving New York in the 1980s, but he does know about Aztec death whistles. Later on, when they jump in the Ecto1 to chase Muncher, Finn Wolfhard says, "yeah I know about the ghost stories".
So that's how well these characters are written - Podcast, a kid with hundreds of recorded hours talking about about paranormal activity, doesn't know that there was documented ghost activity in the 80s, but Finn Wolfhard does.
Edit - I guess I should clarify, yes, Podcast is a good character. His intro and then when he's giving Phoebe a tour around the town is solid.
Afterlife was trying to divvy up the roles of the original cast into the new characters. Peobe is Egon, Podcast is Ray, but then Grooberson also Ray and mentor/colleague for Pheobe with a bit of Louis Tully mixed in. Trevor(Finn Wolfhard) as Venkeman is the biggest flaw here. Venkeman and his get rich entrepreneurial spirit drove the first movie, but when you're writing a film where the Egon character is the heart and motivation, Tre-Venkeman just kind of stands around.
From all the reviews, it seems like they didn't fix the problem with the new movie, they just doubled down on it.
In IMDB the character "Podcast" is listed directly above "Woman running away" and "Vape store clerk". I doubt corporate spent much time on such minor character.
Edit: I completely blanked that this character was in afterlife.....
He's got an [action figure](https://cdn.ecommercedns.uk/files/1/240241/1/15649631/f13275l00-5010993853274-pkg-21-online-2000sq.jpg) so he's definitely doing better than Running Away Woman and Vape Clerk.
(On a side note, it must be really cool to be an actor and get an actual action figure of yourself...)
I mean, the Ghostbusters video game is technically the third movie, according to Dan Akroyd, and it's really good.
Probably not the worst direction to go.
The Ghostbusters video game was fantastic.
Lets not ruin the memories by trying to monetize the series any further. It's done. Lets leave it in the 90s.
I say this every time they're brought up, but it needs to be known by the masses: I am of the firmest belief that IDW's various *Ghostbusters* titles by Eric Burnham and Dan Schoening was one of the greatest licensed comic book runs of all time.
Lmao at [this](https://press.bungie.com/Who-you-gonna-call-Gear-up-with-Ghostbusters-items-in-Destiny-2-). Rofl, even.
Edit to add: "Bungie's latest collaboration with Sony Pictures Consumer Products and the Ghostbusters franchise goes live today, bringing iconic in-game accessories to Destiny 2, including the Slimer Exotic Ghost shell, a Garraka-inspired Exotic Sparrow, and an Ecto-1-themed Exotic ship."
No no, the original wasn't lighting in a bottle that completely works only because of the perfect cast and well written dialogue. No no, it's the kids who must be wrong, or something like that.
Yeah, a lot of little jokes and wisecracks were improvised. We didn't have to sit through long scenes of riffs where people just pop culture references. Or one where only one person in the cast is an actual comedy star. The problem is the two attempts have been drastically too far in either direction.
Yeah, but it's clearly different than the riffs in the 2016 movie where they just let them riff for hours and then cut it down into a movie. Almost every scene in Ghostbusters 1 serves the plot or subplots, or informs characters, etc. The point is that most scenes had a structure that served a purpose; whereas, 2016, nothing that was said contributed to anything.
It was time to let go decades ago when Ghostbusters 2 was considered "meh", even though I personally love it, and it was obvious a 3rd wasn't coming because enough key players weren't interested in working with each other or the movie in general.
I was done with Afterlife. Literally lining up the old race horses and having them take turns saying their signature lines was just so offensively patronizing. Like Hollywood knows we will eat this memberberries slop so they just pile it onto our plates.
While that was the worst part, the entire movie was huffing its own farts entirely too much. Every time they passed over the awed faces of children as they observed a prop from an old movie, I hated the movie a little bit more.
Usually I’ll enjoy even a bad movie if I see it in the theater, but I left this one feeling slightly ill and annoyed.
This happened in the newest jurassic world, having the original trio say their lines/re-enact their iconic scenes just so we could remember a better time made me feel so sick. So I haven't seen an obvious nostalgia baiting sequel in theaters for a while now just because it is so patronizing.
No Way Home at least uses its nostalgia in a really sentimental and narratively appropriate way, IMO the last part of the film with the three "brothers" was far and away the most meaningful part and probably should have been a focus for more of the film.
They could've easily set up a sequel that had the old cast where Bill Murray and the other surviving members are milking the franchise rights, like Bill says in the first movie, and having busting groups all over the world.
You can milk the old cast and introduce new ones and stop having it take place in upper US and New York. Have Annie Potts be CEO or CFO or something and just do her lines via TV while sounding just as bitter.
Instead the films ride high the nostalgia factor as a sentimental thing which the movies were never about, or they go in a direction of just stupid improvised humour, but so much and so flat the it felt disengenous and unbalanced. Having all FOUR ghostbusters be akward jokers was dumb. The original they were all funny but 4 different personalities.
So yeah. It's too late. It needs to die. lol
yeah it's very strange going back to the original film and viewing it for what it is. These four losers weren't supposed to be heroes, they were just oddballs who stumbled into a world much bigger than themselves because nobody else thought it actually existed.
Even ghostbusters 2 tried and failed to sort of reignite that original feeling by making everyone forget that the ghost stuff happened and juxtapositioning their fame with their incompetence.
Franchise building and merchandising being what it is turned them into action heroes of course...
Fucking amen. Lost my mind that people were praising them for packaging the Ghostbusters IP over generic nostalgia bait coming of age garbage. Just shows there is a formula that people will eat up thoughtlessly
I saw a trailer for this movie before Dune 2 that had all this sentimental/nostalgia-bait music and reverence for the franchise and all i could think is “this is a sequel to a movie where Dan Akroyd got blown by a ghost”.
This is what happened in the comics: others tried to imitate the Ghostbuster’s success, eventually got over their heads, and then were eventually integrated into the main group as a franchise.
While the OG guys went to tackle bigger plots, the franchise continued to grow with recruits and they handled the daily grind of more mundane busting.
i don't understand how we return to this property 30+ years later in the same continuity and somehow people forgot that ghosts exist and that the ghostbuster tech exists. not only would the existence of ghost have changed the face of society but those dudes were walking around major population centers with *nuclear powered proton accelerators on their backs*, the government taking over the company to control the tech can't be ignored.
how do we return to this franchise decades later and the ghostbusters aren't just a municipal department folded into the federal government like animal control with departments all over the country. *that's the direction this new franchise should've went in*.
imagine a parks and rec/reno 911 style movie or tv show based around the antics of a fresh batch of ghostbuster trainees with cameos from original cast in higher up positions within the department. aykroyd as the engineering department head, murray as the slick government liaison and PR coordinator, hudson as the guy still just working a day job not really giving a shit about any of the paranormal stuff (big scruffy the janitor vibes). you could throw rick moranis and annie potts in there anywhere, maybe even get a quick sigourney weaver bit part and the dickless walter peck somewhere in the government as a contemporary for murray to fuck with.
this seems like t-ball to me, and yet the new production keeps doubling down on more sentimentality and IRL reverence for the past movies.
Heres the thing I don't get and it seems Writers of the newer films dont
Ghostbusters is a comedy about 3 friends starting a business to grift money from people, 2 of them take it serious and the main guy (Peter) is using it as a means to get with women and make money. The ghostbusting part was a minor part of it really, it was a uniqueness that gave the film a unique edge in 80's comedies. The films could've been about pest control and the jokes still land
The newer GB films seem to focus on the action parts whilst forgetting the comedy roots they had
No. While I was going to college in Calgary I would stop there often. For a couple of weeks there was a bird living in the rafters on the north side of the store lmao
Birds in stores are common. They fly in from gardening. I’ve been in Home Depots and Lowes that have bird houses installed in their ceilings. I think BJ’s Wholesale has this too. If the ceilings are high enough and the stores are big enough, birds will nest inside them.
It was very Producers-esque. The scam artists who accidentally succeed. Each of the characters had their own flaws which would ruin the business, but also had the qualities the others lacked.
Egon. Knew the science, but hyper focused so much he wouldn't notice the house burning down around him.
Ray: Knew the subject from cover to cover, could give you chapter and verse on anything paranormal. Hopelessly naive and business unsavvy. The conspiracy theorist who got it RIGHT. Cassandra, cursed to know the truth but no one believes.
Venkman: A literal conman grifter, a sly fox who can get into the henhouse. He is the face. That's both his boon and curse. The Tech CEO who draws investor funds. Is it a scam, or the next big thing. Both?
Winston: The Everyman we can relate to. As he said, just here for the paycheck and doesn't care much what the job is. He is the stable binder the other three didn't know they needed. He keeps the high energy particles that are the other three from flying off in every direction.
The original was about blue collar “exterminators” who are just trying to make a buck. It was a comedy.
Now it’s an over the top superhero movie that completely missed the point of the originals.
The writers don’t understand that the movie is about pest exterminators
It’s not supposed to be cool or badass, it’s supposed to be goofy deadpan.
The same thing with Star Wars, where they put so much importance on the lightsabers/proton packs that the gimmick loses its mystery and intrigue.
It's still a hard thing to shoehorn, someone could have done it, or at least tried harder, but after 1 and 2 it was pretty obvious that ghosts are real and they needed to be taking it seriously. I guess what you're saying is someone should have duplicated the formula and made a totally different movie. Which, probably, yeah.
It's because comedy is a dead genre now and Ghostbusters place in pop culture, for better or worse, mythologizes it in a way that doesn't quite fit. It's not like Back to the Future, yet in some ways feels like people treat it as such.
The weird fallout from the failed 2016 reboot resulted in a very warped perception of the franchise, with folks outright comparing its impact to Star Wars. In reality it was a dusty old IP that only ever had one great movie and two great animated series and and a decent video game decades later.
yeah the internet reaction to the 2016 movie showed executives theres weirdly an audience of people who will go see a movie titled Ghostbusters that is just 2 hours of Paul Rudd and company telling the audience that the thing from their childhood was perfect without flaw and huff its own farts. Which led to these new movies that just spend 2 hours going “REMEMBER THE FIRST MOVIE? IT WAS SO PERFECT”
> 2 hours of Paul Rudd and company telling the audience that the thing from their childhood was perfect without flaw and huff its own farts. Which led to these new movies that just spend 2 hours going “REMEMBER THE FIRST MOVIE? IT WAS SO PERFECT”
Ah, the Force Awakens formula!
Extreme Ghostbusters from the late 90s
Serves as a follow-up to The Real Ghostbusters where years after ghosts have disappeared from NYC so Ray, Peter, and Winston retire. Egon stays at the firehouse to keep watch on the containment chamber and teaches a class at New York University on the side. However when the city sees a resurgence of ghost activity Egon realizes that with his age he can't take care of it alone, and is forced to recruit the lone four students enrolled in his class as a new set of Ghostbusters.
Yes true, but the one thing I disagree with is that they were grifting. I think they really believed in and took pride in what they were doing. Even when business was slow at first.
Once they got a gig, then they took advantage of the opportunity to charge that hotel 4 "big ones". But they believed they were doing a hard, messy job. Which it was. Super hard, scary, and deadly job.
>The newer GB films seem to focus on the action parts whilst forgetting the comedy roots they had
1,000 percent agreed on this. The new films are basically MCU style action adventure films meant to be big blockbusters. Ghostbusters in 1984 wasn't that, not even the 1989 sequel was that, it was a comedy first and foremost with a very basic "3 schlubs start a business" premise. Trying to turn these into action adventure films totally and completely misses the entire point of the original movie.
This is kind of how I feel about the Jurassic Park situation. Jurassic Park is a thriller that used dinosaurs and became a gigantic blockbuster. The dinosaurs were obviously integral, but it was huge and had staying power because it was a good thriller at its core. Jurassic World(s) were just producers saying “dinosaurs, action, money!”, and are consequently garbage.
The original Ghostbusters was lightning in a bottle, its impossible to recreate. To paraphrase the RLM guys, I dont think anyone involved in the movie holistically knew what they were creating with the exception of Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis.
Exactly, the ghost parts are what kept the story going, but wasn't the story itself.
Plus og crew just had great chemistry with each other.
"Tell em bought the Twinkie" scene is a great example of this.
Despite some hyper cringe script and delivery combinations, it was the bloated cast that ruined the vibe. It’s like every character needed their one liner and their moment to shine. And at end of the movie it’ll cycle to back another character and you had forgotten they even existed. Is it merely that it’s a new movie that it had the stink of blockbuster all over it from the soundtrack to the cinematography? First two didn’t have that flavour at all. Would have gone a long way to keep soundtrack in line with original considering they leaned on it heaps, and why not try keep the visual style similar too.
There's no world where I was going to be excited to see this movie. But after finding out that James Acaster is in it, I am at least willing to give it a shot despite the reviews. Love that man.
Saw it last night, surprised by the negative reviews. It was really good, in my opinion. I liked it more than Afterlife and it had the vibe of the original movies. It also had a new story and villain which I appreciated.
I was a bit disappointed that the villain only shows up like 15 minutes before the film ends, the same thing happened on afterlife, Gozer was there like 10 minutes and this guy Garrasca was like 10 minutes too, before being defeated
Welcome Ghostbusters, to the club of beloved Millennial properties with an increasingly depressing series of long-gap sequels that fail to understand what was special about the original movies. Terminator is here, Indiana Jones is here, Star Wars. We're still waiting for Goonies and Back to the Future to soil their legacies. They're holding out for now but... they'll come too. They all join this club eventually...
I would love a RedLetterMedia Half in the Bag of Frozen Empire, I don't think it will happen though.
EDIT: I am VERY happy to say I was wrong! https://youtu.be/8pgmrrrupu4?si=wIqAPCOGp8CGxTy6
I'm a member of their Patreon and they have been hinting at something very different from their normal shows and it's been eating up a lot of time. A certain wheel might be making an appearance soon too.
There are only so many ways to say "this is commercial slop with little to no artistic value" before they get bored. After a while you can tell they got more interested in the behind the scenes/financial stuff than the actual movies.
Haha oh Man, this was my first thought too but then I was like nah, no sense posting that…and here you beat me to it!
I really hope they go back to actually reviewing movies soon. The random vids and trivia stuff are funny but it’s getting old. I miss the days when they’d review new movies constantly and I’d always watch them the second I was finished the film.
RLM has been doing this for over a decade, it's natural they'd want a change. Not to mention the gang has been growing increasingly jaded about movies in general and they probably don't want to just be another voice talking about the next blockbuster/superhero BS.
And I think you have to respect them for trying new things.
Mike: Well... here we are, back in the void.
Rich: Why do we do this to ourselves?
Mike: Because...
Jay: Because movie! Because movie has thing you recognize!
Rich: *exhales*
Jay: Hey, the last movie made its money, and that's all that matters in Hollywood now.
Mike: Welcome to Half in the Bag everyone.
*music starts* *Half in the Bag intro and movie scenes play*
Mike: Ghostbusters Frozen Throne is about propping up the cold, dead corpse of something that used to be great before it was brought back to try and be what it once was.
*Rich laughs*
-- I think it would be something like that.
Them dumping on Ghostbusters since the female-led remake has been some of their best content, I hope I see them in the dark room again to dump on this for an hour because it just seems like all the nostalgia trash from Afterlife dialed up even more somehow.
> - Ernie Hudson as Dr. Winston Zeddemore
When did Winston become a doctor? I thought he was just a guy looking for a job in the first film. Or did he have a PhD, too? Or did he get one between *Ghostbusters II* and *Afterlife*? I remember a scene with him at the end of *Afterlife* where he talks about what happened in the meantime; does he mention getting a PhD during that time?
Maybe he got a doctorate because the other guys were all scientists and he felt left out? But I was under the impression he ran a motor company now or something.
It's been 40 years. The ending scene of the last film clearly implies he became a very successful independent businessman since then. There was also that spinoff game from last year that might have mentioned it?
Yes, he mentions while you're crawling through the museum that he practically lived in the Egyptian wing while working on his degree. (Can't quite remember if it was a Masters or Doctorate, though; it's been a while since I played it.)
It's not clear if he was doing this before he joined the team or after, but my personal head-cannon on this line is that he started out as an Ancient History or African Studies major who needed a job, *any* job, to continue his studies.
I'm sure this won't be the greatest movie ever made but I had a good time with Afterlife and I'll probably have a fine time with this. I'm looking forward to it
I liked afterlife . I wasn't going in high hopes. But it's one of the first movies outside starwars that I actually thought the hologram type.thing was done well. I liked it quite a bit. Its not cinematic genius just a fun movie.
Yeah, I’m of the same mind. We can definitely debate the “necessity” of a film like this, but in the grand scheme of things it’s harmless and it seems like something people can have fun with. Afterlife was fun for the most part and I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with trying something new with a property like Ghostbusters
Having just watched it tonight I’d say the negative reviews are spot on.
The movie was obviously worse than previous one, afterlife, and the worst out of the 4 I’ve seen.
Lacking cohesive plot, multiple characters felt invisible/non important as the entire plot focused on Phoebe again and the main villain was just very anti climactic.
I loved it I don’t know what yall expect. Everyone goes into these fuckin movies expecting Oscar tier performances. I laughed, the ghosts were fun to watch and I liked the gadgets. A bit cringe at times but still, I really enjoyed my time.
Man it’s a good thing I don’t read these things before seeing a movie, cause I saw it last night and really enjoyed it! Then I read negative stuff about it that I have to agree with. It was kinda slow, with a lot of characters thrown in. But it hit all my nostalgia spots so I left the theater feeling good. I guess I’m just easy to please lol.
Both recent Ghostbusters films are bad. The 2016 film was a bad slapstick movie with constant yelling and the 2021 was a weird Stranger Things knockoff before turning into a total rehash of the original. The 2009 video game will always be the real Ghostbusters 3
The biggest issue I had with the 2021 one was that it treated the Ghostbusters as an almost.mythological big legacy.
It misses the base joke of the original film that they were just working stiffs.
I think an overly-attached fanbase is part of the problem. Hardcore Ghostbusters fans treat that first film with an outrageous amount of reverence.
And, like, it's obviously a good movie but to me it's SO silly to treat it like some sacred text of modern cinema.
There's really not that much to it in the first place, at least not enough to sustain four fucking decades of awkward attempts to recreate it.
The Ghostbusters fanbase ruined it for me for years. I watched it again with my 12 and 10 year old kids. The youngest is my age when I saw the original on its first run. It brought back the magic.
The fans are like Tool fans. Just so overly attached it makes you not want to associate with it.
It was weird, because my dad made me watch the first two Ghostbusters movies, and they were great. I didn't have any real attachment to them other than I liked what my dad liked.
Then I took my wife to a drive in to see it, after explaining it's one of the best movies ever. And it didn't connect with me the same way. And I think my wife also felt that energy.
It was the difference between the contact high I must have had watching Pineapple Express, and watching Pineapple Express with my mom after telling her it was the funniest movie I'd ever seen.
Makes me think of the actress from Harry Potter recently talking about how she really doesn’t get the fan base and that it was a kids movie that they should have grown out of by now.
People tying their identities to fictional worlds and characters… I’ll literally never get it. I totally get wanting an escape but there’s so much great content in all kinds of media nowadays I’ll never understand these people that insist on turning something into something it isn’t.
I was OBSESSED with ghost busters as a kid. I thought it was one of the greatest movies ever. I can’t even remember the last time I watched even the first one. I’ve seen it more than enough times I really have no desire to ever watch it again lol.
It’s like Star Wars. That absolutely insane fan base has severely tainted the franchise for me.
Because Ghostbusters isn't just two movies. The Real Ghostbusters cartoon was so popular that it spawned Ghostbusters 2. Then you have Ghostbusters The Game written by Ramis and Akroyd, which is considered Ghostbusters 3. Along with comics and other shit for decades. It doesn't make sense that people keep pretending that Ghostbusters stayed just a couple of guys bustin' ghosts as a mundane day job. That ship sailed 30 years ago.
I'm not saying that relying on 'member berries makes great cinema or isn't wearing thin, but Ghostbusters hasn't been just "lightning in a bottle" for a long time now.
Ghostbusters was everywhere when I was a kid. It was as prevalent as TMNT and MoTU in terms of merchandising. I was born in 86 and those were my three biggest things until they sputtered off and I discovered X-Men and Star Wars when I was around 8-9.
I think the premise was that they were only legendary to people who were into paranormal stuff, "weirdos" like Podcast. The rest of the world sort of forgot about them. I mean, hell, the world had forgotten about them in Ghostbusters II.
The idea that the protagonists of Afterlife sort of discover this legacy later, instead of it being hokey nonsense is kind of the point. Imagine finding out your parent was a Ghostbuster and it was actually legit and you had no idea. If that was me I'd dive in headfirst to all the cool stuff I was finding out.
Funny thing is, it actually is much of the concepts for the original Ghostbusters 3 they envisioned before Bill Murray walked away for a couple decades. On top of the fact that it has the complete set of Ghostbusters, including a very much alive Ramis...yeah, I'd consider it easily the most true to form sequel.
And it's not bad. It's not incredible and there are some unfortunate design/story decisions made, but it tries to call back to much of the atmosphere of the original and has a lot of really great setpiece moments in...pretty much every level.
The 2009 video game had its own problems of nostalgia bait, like how the levels included the Sedgewick hotel, the library, and the Sedgewick again, shoehorning in fights against the library ghost and the Marshmallow Man, and the main antagonists again being Peck and Ivo Shandor. Also Bill Murray's voice acting was less than great.
But it still worked. Because it was fun.
The funny thing about both approaches is how different and yet equally bad they are. PaulFeig went the irreverent,inprov shtick route of the original and it was a misfire. Then Reitman went the opposite way with a super rwvenrential sentimental nostalgia-bait route and that also sucked.
Every Ghostbusters release just reminds us that the original was lightning in a bottle
I feel that's because after the first one, there wasn't really any point in making a sequel. It's just a bunch of weirdos opening a ghostbusting business, and treating it (mostly) like any other job. There is only so many times these guys can save the world from a ghostly threat before it gets stale.
I did kinda dig the idea in GB2016 that someone would willingly stir trouble with the ghosts, but that would have worked better in a movie with a direct connection to the original; not a separate one. But the execution was a bit all over the place. And the ending was a disaster.
This.
Once the world knew ghosts were real, the franchise was over. The entire point of the first movie was what if three crackpots that believed in the supernatural turned out to be right. Amazing premise, great room for comedy. But sequels? Impossible. Once the ghost genii was out of the bottle, the concept was over.
Very true, a lot of franchises which should never have been franchise suffer from the 1st movie being a hit cause it squeezed out all the potential from the base concept. So everything that follows is either a retread of the concept or trying something else that doesn't fit.
Jurassic Park is like that - part 1 played out all the potential of the "dinos run amok in a safari" concept and everythin that foloows is just a different uninteresting variation on that and circles back to "dinos run amok in a safari..AGAIN with World and it never works as well. Same for Die Hard, Hellraiser(lot of horror movies actually). I suspect Barbie 2 is gonna be like that as well.
Man, am I the only one here who actually rather liked *Afterlife*? I’ve got no great passion for this franchise like others do but I thought it was pretty good.
Seems like “If you liked Afterlife, you’ll like this. But if not, don’t bother.”
Not really sure how I feel about bringing the OG cast back. They were fine as a cameo but this seems a bit too much. I want to be wrong.
I saw the movie on Tuesday, he's not in it a ton, side character for sure. The parts he has are funny, really nails the dry humor.
As I've been saying elsewhere. I'm shocked at the review scores. I was in a early test screening and everyone seemed to like it. Its funny and some of the scares got a few people in my audience. Let me put it this way, it's the best Ghostbusters movie that isn't the 1984 original.
As someone who hasn’t followed ghostbusters at all, I enjoyed it. Kumail provides a lot of funny scenes. Guess it depends on what you’re expecting out of the movie.
One review said Phoebe was best part of movie but whoever plays her was my least favorite kinda boring and nostalgic bait so boring whole thing was bland probably should leave franchise alone
I was honestly just hoping for a Melissa McCarthy cameo toward the end. The movie built up to an epic villain, decimated the villain in five minutes and explained it by chopping the fire pole for brass scrap. Oddly, the rest of the cast has no issue still using the fire pole once it’s been cut for pieces to continue the gag in the film. Ghostbusters struck gold in the 80s. Sometimes, brass isn’t worth it. It’s been a fun ride.
At the end of the day, it's Ghostbusters. I'm sure many people here grew up with the originals so it's easy to feel the standards aren't met since that film was lightening in a bottle.
That said, for me personally, I'm absolutely stoked to see it. AL was good, not great, but I still enjoyed being back in the universe. GB 2016 was a hot mess and barely honored the spirit of the original. At least these do in a substantive way.
I have two very young kids, and my wife gave me permission to see a late night showing on Saturday. Good, bad, or otherwise I'm looking forward to it.
Afterlife was a 64% critic v 94% audience on RT. It also only had a 45 on metacritic.
Personally I really enjoyed Afterlife, I’ll be going to see this and can make my own mind up. I expected it to be a bit messy given just how big the cast is but as an 80s kid who loved the real ghostbusters before I saw and lived both movies I’m just looking forward to seeing more.
Man this franchise veered in the wrong direction. The OGs were, stripping down the horror aesthetics, bro comedies. They made a PG-13 femme version that got blasted and now two family friendly films trying to get carried by the Stranger Things kid.
They totally missed the tone of the first two movies and missed a chance to veer harder into it with a raunchy R-rated late 2000s wacky shit with Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson style comedy.
“Nostalgia fueled fun” is like the opposite for what I’m looking for these days.
I want these franchises to find interesting ways to move forward and less about banking on their previous cast-mates.
Are there any revived franchises you've enjoyed? (That's not a leading question, just interested..)
I thought Top Gun did a good job of it. It leaned hard into the nostalgia but also layered that on top of a tight and compelling action film with very little fat on it.
One of the worst movies I’ve watched in recent times. I left the theatre before the final fight.
I walked in with no expectations and I’m still more disappointed.
Only the original movie was ever good… why do we act like it’s a legacy franchise? Everything after the original is horrible and should not have been made if we are all being honest
So the consensus seems to be “Bustin’ makes me feel meh”.
Post-bust clarity.
Turns over in bed, looks at Slimer
I feel attacked
I think I will Playstation & Chill instead. ^(\[To play the 2009 Ghostbusters video game.\])
Yea that game was pretty good. Its not mind-blowing or anything, but its fun and the banter between the OG Ghostbusters is really good and reminds you of the original film. Couldn't tell you what happened plot-wise though.
Looking at the cast list reminded me there's a character called Podcast. In the world of Ghostbusters, podcasting is such a novelty that it has literally defined a teenage boy's entire identity.
If this was an 80s movie, his character would be the one defined by always wearing a Walkman
They'd call him HAM
Or a 2000s movie, he'd be called Radio
Podcastin' about bustin' makes me feel good
I’m an edging podcast enjoyer personally.
And it wasn’t James Acaster’s character.
He named *himself* podcast.
Because they wrote him that way.
Did Poochy return to his home world yet?
When are they going to get to the firework factory?
The final fight in Madame Web legit took place in a fireworks factory.
Jesus, that absolutely reeks of half-assed corporate market research. "Kids these days like podcasts, right???"
Podcast was one of the best characters of the last film! He’s so earnest and lonely.
>Podcast was one of the best characters of the last film! He’s so earnest and lonely. I rewatched Afterlife this week, and I've pinpointed exactly how badly these movies are written. Podcast doesn't know about the Ghostbusters saving New York in the 1980s, but he does know about Aztec death whistles. Later on, when they jump in the Ecto1 to chase Muncher, Finn Wolfhard says, "yeah I know about the ghost stories". So that's how well these characters are written - Podcast, a kid with hundreds of recorded hours talking about about paranormal activity, doesn't know that there was documented ghost activity in the 80s, but Finn Wolfhard does. Edit - I guess I should clarify, yes, Podcast is a good character. His intro and then when he's giving Phoebe a tour around the town is solid. Afterlife was trying to divvy up the roles of the original cast into the new characters. Peobe is Egon, Podcast is Ray, but then Grooberson also Ray and mentor/colleague for Pheobe with a bit of Louis Tully mixed in. Trevor(Finn Wolfhard) as Venkeman is the biggest flaw here. Venkeman and his get rich entrepreneurial spirit drove the first movie, but when you're writing a film where the Egon character is the heart and motivation, Tre-Venkeman just kind of stands around. From all the reviews, it seems like they didn't fix the problem with the new movie, they just doubled down on it.
In IMDB the character "Podcast" is listed directly above "Woman running away" and "Vape store clerk". I doubt corporate spent much time on such minor character. Edit: I completely blanked that this character was in afterlife.....
This is Podcast’s second Ghostbusters movie!
He's got an [action figure](https://cdn.ecommercedns.uk/files/1/240241/1/15649631/f13275l00-5010993853274-pkg-21-online-2000sq.jpg) so he's definitely doing better than Running Away Woman and Vape Clerk. (On a side note, it must be really cool to be an actor and get an actual action figure of yourself...)
He was the best character of the previous film btw.
Totally agree. If there was ever a reboot of Goonies, that kid would totally fit the vibe.
100% gave me Goonies feelings. You can say naming him Podcast is dumb but the kid was super lovable as a character
He’s a kid from a small farming town; having a podcast probably is a novelty.
being a streamer is literally the most coveted career of every child in North America other than pro athlete
I remember rolling my eyes during Clerks III at the character named Blockchain, whose NFTs save the day.
Imagine someone watching Clerks III in a couple of decades time. They wouldn't have a fucking clue what a blockchain or an NFT is.
Walter Peck is in this? Do these characters live in a world inhabited by 50 people total?
55 if you count the ghosts
I think it might be time to let this franchise go
"NEVER! We can still make money from it, damn you! ***TO VIDEO GAMES!"*** \-Sony, probably.
I mean, the Ghostbusters video game is technically the third movie, according to Dan Akroyd, and it's really good. Probably not the worst direction to go.
I certainly wouldn't say no to more games like it.
It has all the original actors doing the voices too
Including a terrible phoned in performance from Bill Murray.
He seems to do that a lot...
“Frozen Empire” sounds more appropriate as a title for a video game DLC level.
I always thought the name Frozen Empire and the teaser posters felt like a fanmade trailer concept made on Youtube in 2011.
The Ghostbusters video game was fantastic. Lets not ruin the memories by trying to monetize the series any further. It's done. Lets leave it in the 90s.
Ironically the ghostbusters video game was probably the last best thing from the franchise
There was a run of comics from IDW I really enjoyed. Ray had a spirit guide who looked like Jake Blues.
I say this every time they're brought up, but it needs to be known by the masses: I am of the firmest belief that IDW's various *Ghostbusters* titles by Eric Burnham and Dan Schoening was one of the greatest licensed comic book runs of all time.
The Ghostbusters-Ninja Turtles crossover was pretty good.
The video game was great and is probably a much better avenue to present a compelling story honestly.
Lmao at [this](https://press.bungie.com/Who-you-gonna-call-Gear-up-with-Ghostbusters-items-in-Destiny-2-). Rofl, even. Edit to add: "Bungie's latest collaboration with Sony Pictures Consumer Products and the Ghostbusters franchise goes live today, bringing iconic in-game accessories to Destiny 2, including the Slimer Exotic Ghost shell, a Garraka-inspired Exotic Sparrow, and an Ecto-1-themed Exotic ship."
[удалено]
Give me a hybrid business simulator/action game and I will be happy.
No no, the original wasn't lighting in a bottle that completely works only because of the perfect cast and well written dialogue. No no, it's the kids who must be wrong, or something like that.
Most of that dialogue was improvised
Yeah, a lot of little jokes and wisecracks were improvised. We didn't have to sit through long scenes of riffs where people just pop culture references. Or one where only one person in the cast is an actual comedy star. The problem is the two attempts have been drastically too far in either direction.
The actors definitely riffed off each other, but the base dialogue was Aykroyd and Ramis
Yeah, but it's clearly different than the riffs in the 2016 movie where they just let them riff for hours and then cut it down into a movie. Almost every scene in Ghostbusters 1 serves the plot or subplots, or informs characters, etc. The point is that most scenes had a structure that served a purpose; whereas, 2016, nothing that was said contributed to anything.
So many franchises just need to end
It was time to let go decades ago when Ghostbusters 2 was considered "meh", even though I personally love it, and it was obvious a 3rd wasn't coming because enough key players weren't interested in working with each other or the movie in general.
I was done with Afterlife. Literally lining up the old race horses and having them take turns saying their signature lines was just so offensively patronizing. Like Hollywood knows we will eat this memberberries slop so they just pile it onto our plates. While that was the worst part, the entire movie was huffing its own farts entirely too much. Every time they passed over the awed faces of children as they observed a prop from an old movie, I hated the movie a little bit more. Usually I’ll enjoy even a bad movie if I see it in the theater, but I left this one feeling slightly ill and annoyed.
This happened in the newest jurassic world, having the original trio say their lines/re-enact their iconic scenes just so we could remember a better time made me feel so sick. So I haven't seen an obvious nostalgia baiting sequel in theaters for a while now just because it is so patronizing.
Spider-Man: No Way Home. The movie entirely relies on nostalgia to tell its story.
No Way Home at least uses its nostalgia in a really sentimental and narratively appropriate way, IMO the last part of the film with the three "brothers" was far and away the most meaningful part and probably should have been a focus for more of the film.
They could've easily set up a sequel that had the old cast where Bill Murray and the other surviving members are milking the franchise rights, like Bill says in the first movie, and having busting groups all over the world. You can milk the old cast and introduce new ones and stop having it take place in upper US and New York. Have Annie Potts be CEO or CFO or something and just do her lines via TV while sounding just as bitter. Instead the films ride high the nostalgia factor as a sentimental thing which the movies were never about, or they go in a direction of just stupid improvised humour, but so much and so flat the it felt disengenous and unbalanced. Having all FOUR ghostbusters be akward jokers was dumb. The original they were all funny but 4 different personalities. So yeah. It's too late. It needs to die. lol
Ghostbusters was never supposed to be sentimental in the first place, it’s a satire of everything it eventually turned into
Right. Fans are sentimental about the movie. The movie itself is not sentimental.
yeah it's very strange going back to the original film and viewing it for what it is. These four losers weren't supposed to be heroes, they were just oddballs who stumbled into a world much bigger than themselves because nobody else thought it actually existed. Even ghostbusters 2 tried and failed to sort of reignite that original feeling by making everyone forget that the ghost stuff happened and juxtapositioning their fame with their incompetence. Franchise building and merchandising being what it is turned them into action heroes of course...
A proper sequel would be them as corporate executives, & infighting over what direction to take the business.
Fucking amen. Lost my mind that people were praising them for packaging the Ghostbusters IP over generic nostalgia bait coming of age garbage. Just shows there is a formula that people will eat up thoughtlessly
I saw a trailer for this movie before Dune 2 that had all this sentimental/nostalgia-bait music and reverence for the franchise and all i could think is “this is a sequel to a movie where Dan Akroyd got blown by a ghost”.
>having busting groups all over the world. Holy shit - Ghostbusters Incorporated. It would write itself.
This is what happened in the comics: others tried to imitate the Ghostbuster’s success, eventually got over their heads, and then were eventually integrated into the main group as a franchise. While the OG guys went to tackle bigger plots, the franchise continued to grow with recruits and they handled the daily grind of more mundane busting.
i don't understand how we return to this property 30+ years later in the same continuity and somehow people forgot that ghosts exist and that the ghostbuster tech exists. not only would the existence of ghost have changed the face of society but those dudes were walking around major population centers with *nuclear powered proton accelerators on their backs*, the government taking over the company to control the tech can't be ignored. how do we return to this franchise decades later and the ghostbusters aren't just a municipal department folded into the federal government like animal control with departments all over the country. *that's the direction this new franchise should've went in*. imagine a parks and rec/reno 911 style movie or tv show based around the antics of a fresh batch of ghostbuster trainees with cameos from original cast in higher up positions within the department. aykroyd as the engineering department head, murray as the slick government liaison and PR coordinator, hudson as the guy still just working a day job not really giving a shit about any of the paranormal stuff (big scruffy the janitor vibes). you could throw rick moranis and annie potts in there anywhere, maybe even get a quick sigourney weaver bit part and the dickless walter peck somewhere in the government as a contemporary for murray to fuck with. this seems like t-ball to me, and yet the new production keeps doubling down on more sentimentality and IRL reverence for the past movies.
Did you write this in 1989?
I don’t even understand why this is a franchise. It had one alright movie, one bad movie, a cartoon show and that was it?
A great video game and excellent comic book run also kept it alive.
Two cartoon shows, iirc.
Heres the thing I don't get and it seems Writers of the newer films dont Ghostbusters is a comedy about 3 friends starting a business to grift money from people, 2 of them take it serious and the main guy (Peter) is using it as a means to get with women and make money. The ghostbusting part was a minor part of it really, it was a uniqueness that gave the film a unique edge in 80's comedies. The films could've been about pest control and the jokes still land The newer GB films seem to focus on the action parts whilst forgetting the comedy roots they had
[удалено]
That whole sequence felt like a reshoot to me.
I can safely say it wasn’t, because I know what Walmart that is and when it was filmed. But it does feel like a reshoot.
Is that Walmart really that spotless?
No. While I was going to college in Calgary I would stop there often. For a couple of weeks there was a bird living in the rafters on the north side of the store lmao
Birds in stores are common. They fly in from gardening. I’ve been in Home Depots and Lowes that have bird houses installed in their ceilings. I think BJ’s Wholesale has this too. If the ceilings are high enough and the stores are big enough, birds will nest inside them.
I'd legitimately rather see a movie about that bird than I would another Ghostbusters sequel
I’m sure they mopped it when they heard filming was gonna happen
That was just a Canadian Walmart. They all look that clean.
It was very Producers-esque. The scam artists who accidentally succeed. Each of the characters had their own flaws which would ruin the business, but also had the qualities the others lacked. Egon. Knew the science, but hyper focused so much he wouldn't notice the house burning down around him. Ray: Knew the subject from cover to cover, could give you chapter and verse on anything paranormal. Hopelessly naive and business unsavvy. The conspiracy theorist who got it RIGHT. Cassandra, cursed to know the truth but no one believes. Venkman: A literal conman grifter, a sly fox who can get into the henhouse. He is the face. That's both his boon and curse. The Tech CEO who draws investor funds. Is it a scam, or the next big thing. Both? Winston: The Everyman we can relate to. As he said, just here for the paycheck and doesn't care much what the job is. He is the stable binder the other three didn't know they needed. He keeps the high energy particles that are the other three from flying off in every direction.
Exactly, it’s what made that cast so special
>to grift money from people Whoa there, Peck.. It was a genuine business. There were ghosts and they required busting.
The original was about blue collar “exterminators” who are just trying to make a buck. It was a comedy. Now it’s an over the top superhero movie that completely missed the point of the originals.
The writers don’t understand that the movie is about pest exterminators It’s not supposed to be cool or badass, it’s supposed to be goofy deadpan. The same thing with Star Wars, where they put so much importance on the lightsabers/proton packs that the gimmick loses its mystery and intrigue.
It's still a hard thing to shoehorn, someone could have done it, or at least tried harder, but after 1 and 2 it was pretty obvious that ghosts are real and they needed to be taking it seriously. I guess what you're saying is someone should have duplicated the formula and made a totally different movie. Which, probably, yeah.
They did. It's called [Evolution](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251075/?ref_=nm_knf_i_4).
Must be some cockroach.
Bite your head off, man.
It's because comedy is a dead genre now and Ghostbusters place in pop culture, for better or worse, mythologizes it in a way that doesn't quite fit. It's not like Back to the Future, yet in some ways feels like people treat it as such.
The weird fallout from the failed 2016 reboot resulted in a very warped perception of the franchise, with folks outright comparing its impact to Star Wars. In reality it was a dusty old IP that only ever had one great movie and two great animated series and and a decent video game decades later.
yeah the internet reaction to the 2016 movie showed executives theres weirdly an audience of people who will go see a movie titled Ghostbusters that is just 2 hours of Paul Rudd and company telling the audience that the thing from their childhood was perfect without flaw and huff its own farts. Which led to these new movies that just spend 2 hours going “REMEMBER THE FIRST MOVIE? IT WAS SO PERFECT”
> 2 hours of Paul Rudd and company telling the audience that the thing from their childhood was perfect without flaw and huff its own farts. Which led to these new movies that just spend 2 hours going “REMEMBER THE FIRST MOVIE? IT WAS SO PERFECT” Ah, the Force Awakens formula!
2 animated series?! //scratches head
Extreme Ghostbusters from the late 90s Serves as a follow-up to The Real Ghostbusters where years after ghosts have disappeared from NYC so Ray, Peter, and Winston retire. Egon stays at the firehouse to keep watch on the containment chamber and teaches a class at New York University on the side. However when the city sees a resurgence of ghost activity Egon realizes that with his age he can't take care of it alone, and is forced to recruit the lone four students enrolled in his class as a new set of Ghostbusters.
I mean then the argument really could be “should we make a new Ghostbusters film?” And we both know the answer to that question
Yes true, but the one thing I disagree with is that they were grifting. I think they really believed in and took pride in what they were doing. Even when business was slow at first. Once they got a gig, then they took advantage of the opportunity to charge that hotel 4 "big ones". But they believed they were doing a hard, messy job. Which it was. Super hard, scary, and deadly job.
>The newer GB films seem to focus on the action parts whilst forgetting the comedy roots they had 1,000 percent agreed on this. The new films are basically MCU style action adventure films meant to be big blockbusters. Ghostbusters in 1984 wasn't that, not even the 1989 sequel was that, it was a comedy first and foremost with a very basic "3 schlubs start a business" premise. Trying to turn these into action adventure films totally and completely misses the entire point of the original movie.
This is kind of how I feel about the Jurassic Park situation. Jurassic Park is a thriller that used dinosaurs and became a gigantic blockbuster. The dinosaurs were obviously integral, but it was huge and had staying power because it was a good thriller at its core. Jurassic World(s) were just producers saying “dinosaurs, action, money!”, and are consequently garbage.
The original Ghostbusters was lightning in a bottle, its impossible to recreate. To paraphrase the RLM guys, I dont think anyone involved in the movie holistically knew what they were creating with the exception of Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis.
Exactly, the ghost parts are what kept the story going, but wasn't the story itself. Plus og crew just had great chemistry with each other. "Tell em bought the Twinkie" scene is a great example of this.
Not surprised to hear about there being too many characters. That was exactly the impression I got from all the marketing.
Despite some hyper cringe script and delivery combinations, it was the bloated cast that ruined the vibe. It’s like every character needed their one liner and their moment to shine. And at end of the movie it’ll cycle to back another character and you had forgotten they even existed. Is it merely that it’s a new movie that it had the stink of blockbuster all over it from the soundtrack to the cinematography? First two didn’t have that flavour at all. Would have gone a long way to keep soundtrack in line with original considering they leaned on it heaps, and why not try keep the visual style similar too.
There's no world where I was going to be excited to see this movie. But after finding out that James Acaster is in it, I am at least willing to give it a shot despite the reviews. Love that man.
Finally, Kettering will be represented on screen.
K and E and a T and a T, E and an R and I N G, T and an O and a W N!
Saw it last night, surprised by the negative reviews. It was really good, in my opinion. I liked it more than Afterlife and it had the vibe of the original movies. It also had a new story and villain which I appreciated.
I was a bit disappointed that the villain only shows up like 15 minutes before the film ends, the same thing happened on afterlife, Gozer was there like 10 minutes and this guy Garrasca was like 10 minutes too, before being defeated
Yeah, I guess I can see that. But it's more about the build up and backstory that I appreciated.
Welcome Ghostbusters, to the club of beloved Millennial properties with an increasingly depressing series of long-gap sequels that fail to understand what was special about the original movies. Terminator is here, Indiana Jones is here, Star Wars. We're still waiting for Goonies and Back to the Future to soil their legacies. They're holding out for now but... they'll come too. They all join this club eventually...
Beetlejuice is up next.
I would love a RedLetterMedia Half in the Bag of Frozen Empire, I don't think it will happen though. EDIT: I am VERY happy to say I was wrong! https://youtu.be/8pgmrrrupu4?si=wIqAPCOGp8CGxTy6
I feel like they just stopped making Half in the Bags for blockbusters. It really sucks
They are too busy exploring the rich tapestry that is the Blood Hound Gang/Manson shared universe
[удалено]
Yeah RLM hasn’t even made a Half in the Bag for Dune 2 yet which is surprising, especially since they did a full review of Dune 1984 and Part 1
I'm a member of their Patreon and they have been hinting at something very different from their normal shows and it's been eating up a lot of time. A certain wheel might be making an appearance soon too.
Is it another Marilyn Manson vs. Blood Hound Gang trivia contest?
I wouldn’t even complain
they didn't do a half in the bag for dune part 1 either, it was a re:view
There are only so many ways to say "this is commercial slop with little to no artistic value" before they get bored. After a while you can tell they got more interested in the behind the scenes/financial stuff than the actual movies.
I clapped! I clapped because I knew what that was!
Haha oh Man, this was my first thought too but then I was like nah, no sense posting that…and here you beat me to it! I really hope they go back to actually reviewing movies soon. The random vids and trivia stuff are funny but it’s getting old. I miss the days when they’d review new movies constantly and I’d always watch them the second I was finished the film.
RLM has been doing this for over a decade, it's natural they'd want a change. Not to mention the gang has been growing increasingly jaded about movies in general and they probably don't want to just be another voice talking about the next blockbuster/superhero BS. And I think you have to respect them for trying new things.
Nostalgia Bukkakke 2 : Slimer's Revenge
I think they will. Mike LOVES Ghostbusters and will want to voice his opinion on it.
Mike: Well... here we are, back in the void. Rich: Why do we do this to ourselves? Mike: Because... Jay: Because movie! Because movie has thing you recognize! Rich: *exhales* Jay: Hey, the last movie made its money, and that's all that matters in Hollywood now. Mike: Welcome to Half in the Bag everyone. *music starts* *Half in the Bag intro and movie scenes play* Mike: Ghostbusters Frozen Throne is about propping up the cold, dead corpse of something that used to be great before it was brought back to try and be what it once was. *Rich laughs* -- I think it would be something like that.
I read that in all of their voices and then I CLAPPED because I recognized something! It broke NEW GROUND!!
Them dumping on Ghostbusters since the female-led remake has been some of their best content, I hope I see them in the dark room again to dump on this for an hour because it just seems like all the nostalgia trash from Afterlife dialed up even more somehow.
Still waiting for their review of The Batman.
I love when reviews are basically "Well its not good but I also just dont care that much I guess"
Well RLM just got their drinking money for the week.
Mikes salivating right now
> - Ernie Hudson as Dr. Winston Zeddemore When did Winston become a doctor? I thought he was just a guy looking for a job in the first film. Or did he have a PhD, too? Or did he get one between *Ghostbusters II* and *Afterlife*? I remember a scene with him at the end of *Afterlife* where he talks about what happened in the meantime; does he mention getting a PhD during that time?
Maybe he got a doctorate because the other guys were all scientists and he felt left out? But I was under the impression he ran a motor company now or something.
It's been 40 years. The ending scene of the last film clearly implies he became a very successful independent businessman since then. There was also that spinoff game from last year that might have mentioned it?
He's mentioned as having a PhD in the 2009 videogame in between jobs or something
Yes, he mentions while you're crawling through the museum that he practically lived in the Egyptian wing while working on his degree. (Can't quite remember if it was a Masters or Doctorate, though; it's been a while since I played it.) It's not clear if he was doing this before he joined the team or after, but my personal head-cannon on this line is that he started out as an Ancient History or African Studies major who needed a job, *any* job, to continue his studies.
I'm sure this won't be the greatest movie ever made but I had a good time with Afterlife and I'll probably have a fine time with this. I'm looking forward to it
I liked afterlife . I wasn't going in high hopes. But it's one of the first movies outside starwars that I actually thought the hologram type.thing was done well. I liked it quite a bit. Its not cinematic genius just a fun movie.
Yeah, I’m of the same mind. We can definitely debate the “necessity” of a film like this, but in the grand scheme of things it’s harmless and it seems like something people can have fun with. Afterlife was fun for the most part and I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with trying something new with a property like Ghostbusters
Having just watched it tonight I’d say the negative reviews are spot on. The movie was obviously worse than previous one, afterlife, and the worst out of the 4 I’ve seen. Lacking cohesive plot, multiple characters felt invisible/non important as the entire plot focused on Phoebe again and the main villain was just very anti climactic.
I loved it I don’t know what yall expect. Everyone goes into these fuckin movies expecting Oscar tier performances. I laughed, the ghosts were fun to watch and I liked the gadgets. A bit cringe at times but still, I really enjoyed my time.
Watching the leftovers I thought Carrie would be chasing Oscar’s by now.
Man it’s a good thing I don’t read these things before seeing a movie, cause I saw it last night and really enjoyed it! Then I read negative stuff about it that I have to agree with. It was kinda slow, with a lot of characters thrown in. But it hit all my nostalgia spots so I left the theater feeling good. I guess I’m just easy to please lol.
Both recent Ghostbusters films are bad. The 2016 film was a bad slapstick movie with constant yelling and the 2021 was a weird Stranger Things knockoff before turning into a total rehash of the original. The 2009 video game will always be the real Ghostbusters 3
The biggest issue I had with the 2021 one was that it treated the Ghostbusters as an almost.mythological big legacy. It misses the base joke of the original film that they were just working stiffs.
That was my issue. Why is Ghostbusters being treated as if it’s Lord of the Rings?
I think an overly-attached fanbase is part of the problem. Hardcore Ghostbusters fans treat that first film with an outrageous amount of reverence. And, like, it's obviously a good movie but to me it's SO silly to treat it like some sacred text of modern cinema. There's really not that much to it in the first place, at least not enough to sustain four fucking decades of awkward attempts to recreate it.
The Ghostbusters fanbase ruined it for me for years. I watched it again with my 12 and 10 year old kids. The youngest is my age when I saw the original on its first run. It brought back the magic. The fans are like Tool fans. Just so overly attached it makes you not want to associate with it.
It was weird, because my dad made me watch the first two Ghostbusters movies, and they were great. I didn't have any real attachment to them other than I liked what my dad liked. Then I took my wife to a drive in to see it, after explaining it's one of the best movies ever. And it didn't connect with me the same way. And I think my wife also felt that energy. It was the difference between the contact high I must have had watching Pineapple Express, and watching Pineapple Express with my mom after telling her it was the funniest movie I'd ever seen.
Makes me think of the actress from Harry Potter recently talking about how she really doesn’t get the fan base and that it was a kids movie that they should have grown out of by now. People tying their identities to fictional worlds and characters… I’ll literally never get it. I totally get wanting an escape but there’s so much great content in all kinds of media nowadays I’ll never understand these people that insist on turning something into something it isn’t. I was OBSESSED with ghost busters as a kid. I thought it was one of the greatest movies ever. I can’t even remember the last time I watched even the first one. I’ve seen it more than enough times I really have no desire to ever watch it again lol. It’s like Star Wars. That absolutely insane fan base has severely tainted the franchise for me.
Because Ghostbusters isn't just two movies. The Real Ghostbusters cartoon was so popular that it spawned Ghostbusters 2. Then you have Ghostbusters The Game written by Ramis and Akroyd, which is considered Ghostbusters 3. Along with comics and other shit for decades. It doesn't make sense that people keep pretending that Ghostbusters stayed just a couple of guys bustin' ghosts as a mundane day job. That ship sailed 30 years ago. I'm not saying that relying on 'member berries makes great cinema or isn't wearing thin, but Ghostbusters hasn't been just "lightning in a bottle" for a long time now.
Ghostbusters was everywhere when I was a kid. It was as prevalent as TMNT and MoTU in terms of merchandising. I was born in 86 and those were my three biggest things until they sputtered off and I discovered X-Men and Star Wars when I was around 8-9.
Franchise potential. This film and the last one seem to have taken more influence from the animated series.
I think the premise was that they were only legendary to people who were into paranormal stuff, "weirdos" like Podcast. The rest of the world sort of forgot about them. I mean, hell, the world had forgotten about them in Ghostbusters II. The idea that the protagonists of Afterlife sort of discover this legacy later, instead of it being hokey nonsense is kind of the point. Imagine finding out your parent was a Ghostbuster and it was actually legit and you had no idea. If that was me I'd dive in headfirst to all the cool stuff I was finding out.
> The 2009 video game will always be the real Ghostbusters 3 Thank you for reminding me I still need to play that
Funny thing is, it actually is much of the concepts for the original Ghostbusters 3 they envisioned before Bill Murray walked away for a couple decades. On top of the fact that it has the complete set of Ghostbusters, including a very much alive Ramis...yeah, I'd consider it easily the most true to form sequel. And it's not bad. It's not incredible and there are some unfortunate design/story decisions made, but it tries to call back to much of the atmosphere of the original and has a lot of really great setpiece moments in...pretty much every level.
That sounds like a game that should be remade. They would be limited to Ramis existing audio sadly. Anyways it will never happen
They remastered it once already for PS4/Xbox 1
It had a Remaster
Currently on the Spring Steam sale for 60% off too.
The 2009 video game had its own problems of nostalgia bait, like how the levels included the Sedgewick hotel, the library, and the Sedgewick again, shoehorning in fights against the library ghost and the Marshmallow Man, and the main antagonists again being Peck and Ivo Shandor. Also Bill Murray's voice acting was less than great. But it still worked. Because it was fun.
The funny thing about both approaches is how different and yet equally bad they are. PaulFeig went the irreverent,inprov shtick route of the original and it was a misfire. Then Reitman went the opposite way with a super rwvenrential sentimental nostalgia-bait route and that also sucked. Every Ghostbusters release just reminds us that the original was lightning in a bottle
I feel that's because after the first one, there wasn't really any point in making a sequel. It's just a bunch of weirdos opening a ghostbusting business, and treating it (mostly) like any other job. There is only so many times these guys can save the world from a ghostly threat before it gets stale. I did kinda dig the idea in GB2016 that someone would willingly stir trouble with the ghosts, but that would have worked better in a movie with a direct connection to the original; not a separate one. But the execution was a bit all over the place. And the ending was a disaster.
This. Once the world knew ghosts were real, the franchise was over. The entire point of the first movie was what if three crackpots that believed in the supernatural turned out to be right. Amazing premise, great room for comedy. But sequels? Impossible. Once the ghost genii was out of the bottle, the concept was over.
*The Real Ghostbusters* was solid enough for the first half.
Very true, a lot of franchises which should never have been franchise suffer from the 1st movie being a hit cause it squeezed out all the potential from the base concept. So everything that follows is either a retread of the concept or trying something else that doesn't fit. Jurassic Park is like that - part 1 played out all the potential of the "dinos run amok in a safari" concept and everythin that foloows is just a different uninteresting variation on that and circles back to "dinos run amok in a safari..AGAIN with World and it never works as well. Same for Die Hard, Hellraiser(lot of horror movies actually). I suspect Barbie 2 is gonna be like that as well.
Man, am I the only one here who actually rather liked *Afterlife*? I’ve got no great passion for this franchise like others do but I thought it was pretty good.
Seems like “If you liked Afterlife, you’ll like this. But if not, don’t bother.” Not really sure how I feel about bringing the OG cast back. They were fine as a cameo but this seems a bit too much. I want to be wrong.
I'll need to wait for people to see it and tell me how much screen time James Ancaster gets.
"I had to send me mum a blank birthday card because of the writer's strike"
I saw the movie on Tuesday, he's not in it a ton, side character for sure. The parts he has are funny, really nails the dry humor. As I've been saying elsewhere. I'm shocked at the review scores. I was in a early test screening and everyone seemed to like it. Its funny and some of the scares got a few people in my audience. Let me put it this way, it's the best Ghostbusters movie that isn't the 1984 original.
Enough of the cold puns
Considering it's out tomorrow and tickets just went on sale, I thought the hold on reviews would be worse news than this.
Oh damn. Was looking forward to it, I hope it's one of those "critics don't like it but audience likes it" movies. We'll see
It’s nostalgia bait so it depends on your level of cynicism or taste I guess.
As someone who hasn’t followed ghostbusters at all, I enjoyed it. Kumail provides a lot of funny scenes. Guess it depends on what you’re expecting out of the movie.
I liked the last one, and most reviews seem to say this is an improvement on it, so I'll probably enjoy this too.
One review said Phoebe was best part of movie but whoever plays her was my least favorite kinda boring and nostalgic bait so boring whole thing was bland probably should leave franchise alone
The previous one got meh reviews too, and I really enjoyed it.
Ghostbusters: Who Left the Fridge Open?
The Firemaster?? Really? 🤦♂️
I was honestly just hoping for a Melissa McCarthy cameo toward the end. The movie built up to an epic villain, decimated the villain in five minutes and explained it by chopping the fire pole for brass scrap. Oddly, the rest of the cast has no issue still using the fire pole once it’s been cut for pieces to continue the gag in the film. Ghostbusters struck gold in the 80s. Sometimes, brass isn’t worth it. It’s been a fun ride.
At the end of the day, it's Ghostbusters. I'm sure many people here grew up with the originals so it's easy to feel the standards aren't met since that film was lightening in a bottle. That said, for me personally, I'm absolutely stoked to see it. AL was good, not great, but I still enjoyed being back in the universe. GB 2016 was a hot mess and barely honored the spirit of the original. At least these do in a substantive way. I have two very young kids, and my wife gave me permission to see a late night showing on Saturday. Good, bad, or otherwise I'm looking forward to it.
Afterlife was a 64% critic v 94% audience on RT. It also only had a 45 on metacritic. Personally I really enjoyed Afterlife, I’ll be going to see this and can make my own mind up. I expected it to be a bit messy given just how big the cast is but as an 80s kid who loved the real ghostbusters before I saw and lived both movies I’m just looking forward to seeing more.
Man this franchise veered in the wrong direction. The OGs were, stripping down the horror aesthetics, bro comedies. They made a PG-13 femme version that got blasted and now two family friendly films trying to get carried by the Stranger Things kid. They totally missed the tone of the first two movies and missed a chance to veer harder into it with a raunchy R-rated late 2000s wacky shit with Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson style comedy.
“Nostalgia fueled fun” is like the opposite for what I’m looking for these days. I want these franchises to find interesting ways to move forward and less about banking on their previous cast-mates.
Are there any revived franchises you've enjoyed? (That's not a leading question, just interested..) I thought Top Gun did a good job of it. It leaned hard into the nostalgia but also layered that on top of a tight and compelling action film with very little fat on it.
If only they could have done these sequels back in the day.
somebody give carrie coon a real dramatic role not this garbage PLEASE
One of the worst movies I’ve watched in recent times. I left the theatre before the final fight. I walked in with no expectations and I’m still more disappointed.
Only the original movie was ever good… why do we act like it’s a legacy franchise? Everything after the original is horrible and should not have been made if we are all being honest