# New Ghostbusters Afterlife trailer



## Morrus (Jul 27, 2021)




----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2021)

The tiny marshmallow men!


----------



## monsmord (Jul 27, 2021)

As a fan, I feel served. But I hope there's a tie-in to the recent reboot as well, which I enjoyed more than _Ghostbutsers II_.


----------



## payn (Jul 27, 2021)

Looks fun. I like that there is a little tension and not just screwball comedy.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2021)

monsmord said:


> But I hope there's a tie-in to the recent reboot as well, which I enjoyed more than _Ghostbutsers II_.




Since Jason Reitman has been talking this up as the _alternative_ to that movie, I'm going to guess there won't be any tie-in.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 27, 2021)

monsmord said:


> As a fan, I feel served. But I hope there's a tie-in to the recent reboot as well, which I enjoyed more than _Ghostbutsers II_.



Very unlikely. That film almost certainly took place in a different continuity.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

This leans way too hard on Ghostbusters I for me. Demon dogs, Stay-Puft marshmallows, etc., and the hyper-reverent tone (pretty sure the original was a comedy created by a team of folks coked-up to their eyeballs) all feel like big red flags.

I know a lot of people didn't like the Paul Fieg Ghostbusters reboot, but it least it was a comedy that took an original approach to the core ideas.


----------



## MarkB (Jul 27, 2021)

Okay, that's definitely looking promising. Feels like it's leaning a little heavily into the Stranger Things vibe of separate, parallel plot threads for the teen and adult casts, but probably too early to call that for certain.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I know a lot of people didn't like the Paul Fieg Ghostbusters reboot, but it least it was a comedy that took an original approach to the core ideas.




Original as in, so terrible it made you want to scratch out your own eyeballs. Calling it a comedy is debatable, since that would require writing jokes.

I'm relieved this is as far away removed from Fieg's abysmal attempt at a reboot. It was an abomination that does not deserve the Ghostbusters name. Plus, allow me to express by hatred for any movie stealing the exact title as an iconic movie, and wearing its skin to fool people into watching it.

This looks fun. Yes, it seems to indulge heavily in the mythology of the original film, but that is I think what most fans want to see. There is a lot about Ivo Shandor that was explored in the GB Videogame, which really felt like GB3. This movie seems to be doing more of that.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jul 27, 2021)

Well that's just the right amount of fanservice to make my little child-of-the-80s heart sing. 

Speaking as a diehard fan who grew up with the original movies, RGB, and XGB, this looks very promising indeed.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Original as in, so terrible it made you want to scratch out your own eyeballs. Calling it a comedy is debatable, since that would require writing jokes.
> 
> I'm relieved this is as far away removed from Fieg's abysmal attempt at a reboot. It was an abomination that does not deserve the Ghostbusters name. Plus, allow me to express by hatred for any movie stealing the exact title as an iconic movie, and wearing its skin to fool people into watching it.




You know, this is a movie.  An idle entertainment.  

At least we now know what kind of perspective you keep on that, to know if/how to engage with you on the topic.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jul 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> This leans way too hard on Ghostbusters I for me. Demon dogs, Stay-Puft marshmallows, etc., and the hyper-reverent tone (pretty sure the original was a comedy created by a team of folks coked-up to their eyeballs) all feel like big red flags.
> 
> I know a lot of people didn't like the Paul Fieg Ghostbusters reboot, but it least it was a comedy that took an original approach to the core ideas.



I really, really, really wanted to like the Ghostbusters reboot, especially given how awful a lot of the most vocal haters were.

But sheesh. It was just a drag.

At the same time, I totally take your point. It's easy for people to forget how much of a goofy, all-out comedy the original Ghostbusters was. I watched it recently and I was amazed at how short the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man scene was. Which was good! A standard present-day take on that whole sequence would have been five times longer with tons more explosions and CGI acrobatics. In my head the whole movie was way heavier on the action. It's a comedy, through and through!

Maybe this movie is actually more of a comedy than the trailer makes it out to be (to get it out from under the shadow of the reboot), but if it's as reverent as you pointed out it it seems to be I would much rather if they had taken a 21 Jump Street sort of approach. 

(Final hedge, though: I also think it's ok for sequels to have very different tones from previous movies, ala Gremlins 2, but as you note this seems to be more interested in rehashing and fan-service than building, branching out or reframing.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Original as in, so terrible it made you want to scratch out your own eyeballs. Calling it a comedy is debatable, since that would require writing jokes.



The hyperbolic criticism of this movie from certain quarters of Ghostbusters fandom is something to see.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jul 27, 2021)

that looks awesome!


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 27, 2021)

Umbran said:


> You know, this is a movie.  An idle entertainment.
> 
> At least we now know what kind of perspective you keep on that, to know if/how to engage with you on the topic.




Fieg's Ghostbusters reboot it hated for a reason. I'm not alone in this opinion.

Don't make excuses for that awful reboot, or act like I have this perspective on movies in general. Fieg's Ghostbusters is one of the worst reboots ever made, and the fact that it bares the Ghostbusters name without shame, makes it extra insulting. Think about it. They didn't call it New Ghostbusters, or Ghostbusters Afterlife. They called it Ghostbusters, as if it were the same as the 80s movie. It was a big sham. They knew how highly praised the original is, and named it the same on purpose to fool people into watching it. That is atrocious.

Thats like making a terrible reboot of Jurassic Park, and calling it Jurassic Park. At least Jurassic World had the decency to change the name.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The hyperbolic criticism of this movie from certain quarters of Ghostbusters fandom is something to see.




No, the criticism is entirely deserved. They made a reboot about an iconic comedy, named it the exact same, but did not bother to write jokes for it. They just had their actors improvize for an hour, kept the camera rolling, and then slapped it together. It is an insult.

I'm relieved that they came out with a teaser for Ghostbusters Afterlife so fast after Fieg pretty much damaged a very popular franchise. Sony clearly knew they messed up big time. And sure, this film seems to be full of nods to the original. I hope it isn't just fan service. But a little bit of fan service is fine, as long as the movie is good. So far, it looks okay. They seem to nail the mood at least, and the trailer isn't the most downvoted trailer in YT history.

It could still be bad, but judging by what I've seen of Afterlife, that is unlikely. So far it has been just the right amount of love towards the original. And it is nice to see Ray making a cameo.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> No, the criticism is entirely deserved. They made a reboot about an iconic comedy, named it the exact same, but did not bother to write jokes for it. They just had their actors improvize for an hour, kept the camera rolling, and then slapped it together. It is an insult.



I look forward to you discovering the past 20 years of movie comedies, all of which are largely improvised, many of which I guarantee you enjoyed.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I look forward to you discovering the past 20 years of movie comedies, all of which are largely improvised, many of which I guarantee you enjoyed.



Very much including the first _Ghostbusters_ film.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Fieg's Ghostbusters reboot it hated for a reason. I'm not alone in this opinion.



There are certainly gross corners of the Internet -- including spaces that are nominally just about Ghostbuster fandom -- where this opinion is common. Several major Facebook groups have had to ban users for the over-the-top sexist attacks -- and death threats -- made over this movie.

It's not a hated movie when you get away from those places, though. Far from it.


Imaculata said:


> the fact that it bares the Ghostbusters name without shame, makes it extra insulting.



How do you think that happened? Do you think that Paul Fieg broke into a studio lot, stole a bunch of IP and ran out, giggling, in the middle of the night? The movie was produced by Ivan Reitman.

No one is trying to insult you and it's irrational for you to say so.


Imaculata said:


> Thats like making a terrible reboot of Jurassic Park, and calling it Jurassic Park. At least Jurassic World had the decency to change the name.



Every Jurassic Park sequel -- including 2 and 3 -- are just as terrible as Jurassic World.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I look forward to you discovering the past 20 years of movie comedies, all of which are largely improvised, many of which I guarantee you enjoyed.




I'm not against improvizing. The original Ghostbusters had improv too.

But it also had a competent script and written jokes. It didn't have actors just obnoxiously yelling whatever they could think of to fill screentime.


----------



## delericho (Jul 27, 2021)

That may be the best trailer I've seen since the one for "The Phantom Menace".


----------



## Morrus (Jul 27, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I'm not against improvizing. The original Ghostbusters had improv too.
> 
> But it also had a competent script and written jokes. It didn't have actors just obnoxiously yelling whatever they could think of to fill screentime.



OK, you've had your rants. Could you please steer the topic back to the new Ghostbusters film? Thanks.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

Oh, and just out of idle curiosity, I looked up lists of the worst remakes of all time.

The first three links -- IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Stacker -- don't mention Ghostbusters anywhere. (And I would argue picking on Barb Wire is unfair, because it's an intentionally terrible movie and it ripping off Casablanca is an amazing act of hubris/madness.)


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> There are certainly gross corners of the Internet -- including spaces that are nominally just about Ghostbuster fandom -- where this opinion is common. Several major Facebook groups have had to ban users for the over-the-top sexist attacks -- and death threats -- made over this movie.




This needs to stop being a defense of that film.



Morrus said:


> OK, you've had your rants. Could you please steer the topic back to the new Ghostbusters film? Thanks.




I have been talking about the new Ghostbusters film. Afterlife looks way better. For starters, there seems to be a competent script, and it seems to get the tone right.

I could still be wrong of course. I hope fan service doesn't make up the entire film. But so far it looks good.

And for the record, I think GB2 is fine. I don't get all the hate.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

This trailer dropping today got Stranger Things 4 trending on Twitter. I'm not sure if Finn Wolfhard is going to have a long career in acting -- his looks are changing pretty dramatically during puberty -- but he does the "kid on wild adventures" stuff very well.

Also, more Paul Rudd in everything, please.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> This needs to stop being a defense of that film.



Those folks need to stop, then. It's regularly attacked in a highly gendered way. If you also dislike the film, but not for sexist and racist reasons, if you are in those spaces, it would be good to help throw cold water on those folks. As it is, a lot of folks who hate the movie give that behavior a pass.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> This trailer dropping today got Stranger Things 4 trending on Twitter. I'm not sure if Finn Wolfhard is going to have a long career in acting -- his looks are changing pretty dramatically during puberty -- but he does the "kid on wild adventures" stuff very well.
> 
> Also, more Paul Rudd in everything, please.




Agreed on Paul Rudd. He's great.

Yeah, Finn is growing up fast. He can't play a Kid forever. And I hope they don't keep casting him as pretty much the same character as in Stranger Things.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jul 27, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> So far, it looks okay. They seem to nail the mood at least, and the trailer isn't the most downvoted trailer in YT history.




That downvoting campaign was one of the worst examples of toxic fandom, right up there with review-bombing Black Panther. That's a valid signal for something serious, namely the ugliness among online nerd communities that started with Gamergate, but it's not signal for what you're presenting it as.



Imaculata said:


> It could still be bad, but judging by what I've seen of Afterlife, that is unlikely. So far it has been just the right amount of love towards the original. And it is nice to see Ray making a cameo.




I'm generally in agreement about the terribleness of the Ghostbusters reboot, but as @Whizbang Dustyboots noted the tone in this trailer doesn't match the original movie at all. Ghostbusters is an _extremely_ silly movie. It has like three total (and brief) moments of genuinely spooky tension, and nearly every other second of its running time is Bill Murray doing his meta-comedy thing, as an actor in a movie he doesn't seem to make sense in, playing a character who thinks everything he's doing and almost everyone he's around is beneath him. It's a very strange comedy. This new one looks like standard Hollywood stuff. Might as well be another MCU movie, as far as the tone goes.

I'm not saying it's going to be bad, just that this trailer is not capturing the tone of the original, and it doesn't seem like the movie is trying to, either.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Those folks need to stop, then. It's regularly attacked in a highly gendered way. If you also dislike the film, but not for sexist and racist reasons, if you are in those spaces, it would be good to help throw cold water on those folks. As it is, a lot of folks who hate the movie give that behavior a pass.




That is offensive and wrong in so many ways, I don't even know how to respond.

So because there are people on the internet hating on a film because there are women in it, I can't criticize the same film and need to distance myself from those groups of people? I'm not in those groups and I don't behave as they do. That should be enough. Yuck!

I am EXCITED to see female Ghostbusters! I WANT to see female Ghostbusters!


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 27, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> I'm not saying it's going to be bad, just that this trailer is not capturing the tone of the original, and it doesn't seem like the movie is trying to, either.



I can see why you might have that opinion, as the tone isn't exactly as in the original film. But I think it is close.

I'm referring specifically to the more serious approach the original film had in regards to the supernatural. In between Murrays wacky antics, there was a feeling of otherworldly dread hanging over the film. The videogame got close to that tone, and I also see hints of it in this trailer.

This trailer and the teaser suggest that the original Ghostbusters did not get to the bottom of Ivo Shandors sinister plans. Perhaps Egon was researching it, but the original gang fell apart, and now a new team needs to pick up the pieces.

I've always liked the idea of a new film further exploring the mythos of Ghostbusters.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jul 27, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I've always liked the idea of a new film further exploring the mythos of Ghostbusters.




Ooh, I don't know about that. Part of the joke that makes _Ghostbusters_ work is the sly way that it implies a sprawling Lovecraftian mythos without actually having one.

Like, my biggest criticism of the _Ghostbusters_ video game was the way that it tied the two movies together, reducing Vigo the Carpathian and the river of slime to just a side-effect of Ivo Shandor's supervillain machinations. That was terrible and stupid and absolutely the wrong way to go, and I seriously hope that _Afterlife_ doesn't mention Shandor at all or treat the video game as canon.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 27, 2021)

Jack Daniel said:


> I seriously hope that _Afterlife_ doesn't mention Shandor at all or treat the video game as canon.



Then I have bad news for you.







I really liked the Mandala-node plot in the videogame, and I liked that it tied the two movie plots together.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> So because there are people on the internet hating on a film because there are women in it, I can't criticize the same film and need to distance myself from those groups of people? I'm not in those groups and I don't behave as they do. That should be enough. Yuck!



That would be offensive if that's what I said, I agree.

But if you have spent any time in Ghostbusters fan spaces -- and your reference to "everyone" hating on the movie certainly suggests it -- you cannot be unaware of the sexist and racist elements of the critiques.

Dislike the film on your own -- that's fine; you are entitled to your wrong opinion! Don't try and refer to the masses that hate the movie, because those masses include a lot of people you don't want to be identified with once they're better defined.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jul 27, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Then I have bad news for you.




Ugh. I guess that in the canonical _Ghostbusters_ universe, it's a small world after all.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

Jack Daniel said:


> Ugh. I guess that in the canonical _Ghostbusters_ universe, it's a small world after all.



To put it mildly. I don't believe the lore of the first movie really merits the three-movie treatment. Surely there are other ghosts and supernatural horrors out there. The cartoons and comics are full of them.


----------



## payn (Jul 27, 2021)

That slide out seat for shooting from Ecto-1 looks incredibly dangerous!


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The hyperbolic criticism of this movie from certain quarters of Ghostbusters fandom is something to see.



Ugh, ain't that the truth.  I'm still not on speaking terms with a couple of my friends from high school, because of how they reacted to the reboot and the rhetoric they were throwing around on social media.  Certain things can't be unseen, once they're brought out into the open.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

payn said:


> That slide out seat for shooting from Ecto-1 looks incredibly dangerous!



Very in-keeping with the engineer who brought us unlicensed portable nuclear reactors!


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> They just had their actors improvize for an hour, kept the camera rolling, and then slapped it together. It is an insult.




You think they kept Bill Murray to a script?  Aykroyd, Ramis, Murray, and Moranis all got their starts in _IMPROV_ comedy - Saturday Night Live and SCTV - not scripted comedy.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Jul 27, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Ghostbusters is an _extremely_ silly movie. It has like three total (and brief) moments of genuinely spooky tension, and nearly every other second of its running time is Bill Murray doing his meta-comedy thing, as an actor in a movie he doesn't seem to make sense in, playing a character who thinks everything he's doing and almost everyone he's around is beneath him. It's a very strange comedy.



I loved the concept of "working schlubs" solving supernatural problems from the first film.

I also think Ghostbusters fits into this really niche comedy genre of Characters Who Don't Belong in the Setting. Bill Murray's character acts like everything is a plumbing problem or something and it's just wonderful. My favorite part is when Sigourney Weaver's character turns into a demon dog and Bill Murray goes, "So, yeah, she's a dog." As if they explains it.

There's an Eddie Murphy film called The Golden Child that's very similar in tone. A lot of the comedy comes from the fact that Eddie Murphy's character doesn't belong in a fantasy epic. He's almost like Bugs Bunny, mugging to the camera and commenting on everything.

Big Trouble in Little China fits into this as well!


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jul 27, 2021)

CleverNickName said:


> Ugh, ain't that the truth.  I'm still not on speaking terms with a couple of my friends from high school, because of how they reacted to the reboot and the rhetoric they were throwing around on social media.  Certain things can't be unseen, once they're brought out into the open.




Yep. And all these misogynist thugs went berserk on the movie based only on the previews and the fact it had a strong female cast. And worse were the brainwashed women who talked the same way about the movie. The female-led Ghostbusters was way better than Ghostbusters II and I hope this new one will be at least as good, though we know nothing will probably match the original.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

BookTenTiger said:


> I loved the concept of "working schlubs" solving supernatural problems from the first film.
> 
> I also think Ghostbusters fits into this really niche comedy genre of Characters Who Don't Belong in the Setting. Bill Murray's character acts like everything is a plumbing problem or something and it's just wonderful. My favorite part is when Sigourney Weaver's character turns into a demon dog and Bill Murray goes, "So, yeah, she's a dog." As if they explains it.
> 
> ...



Both Monster of the Week and Hunter: The Vigil explicitly support blue collar hunters of the supernatural inspired, I have to believe, at least in part by Ghostbusters and the other films you cite.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> This needs to stop being a defense of that film.




*Mod Note:*
No, it does not.

This thread needs to stop being about your vitriolic and uncompromising position on the qualities of movies.  It can become that because you dial it back, or because you are removed from the discussion.

The choice is yours.


----------



## Undrave (Jul 27, 2021)

monsmord said:


> As a fan, I feel served. But I hope there's a tie-in to the recent reboot as well, which I enjoyed more than _Ghostbutsers II_.



Well there was that in the AMAZING IDW comics! Ghostbusters 101 was fun!

Sadly, apparently to 'consolidate the brand' they pulled the IDW license basically without fanfare last year or so and now all the comics are no longer on sale on Comixology -_- the IDW comics were basically THE sequel people wanted to see!



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> This leans way too hard on Ghostbusters I for me. Demon dogs, Stay-Puft marshmallows, etc., and the hyper-reverent tone (pretty sure the original was a comedy created by a team of folks coked-up to their eyeballs) all feel like big red flags.
> 
> I know a lot of people didn't like the Paul Fieg Ghostbusters reboot, but it least it was a comedy that took an original approach to the core ideas.






Grendel_Khan said:


> At the same time, I totally take your point. It's easy for people to forget how much of a goofy, all-out comedy the original Ghostbusters was. I watched it recently and I was amazed at how short the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man scene was. Which was good! A standard present-day take on that whole sequence would have been five times longer with tons more explosions and CGI acrobatics. In my head the whole movie was way heavier on the action. It's a comedy, through and through!




That was the thing with Paul Fieg: he saw it (Ghostbusters I) only as a comedy. He saw it as an adult and appreciated it on that level, so he just... made a comedy. And in a way, this is also the way the original cast saw the movie when they came back to do Ghostbuster II... and I think it's why it was so disappointing.

But here's the thing... the first movie was enjoyed by kids for whom ghosts and monsters were scary, the super natural was scary, and the boogey man was still hiding in their closet... and here's this gang of schlub who show you that with enough knowledge and know-how, anyone can face the Darkness and put a stop to it. That impact was important to a whole generation... And that angle was kept for the long running _The Real Ghostbusters_ cartoon. We don't hear it mention much, but that show, and its toyline, did FAR more to crystallize the Ghostbusters in the public consciousness than the repetitive sequel. Hurray for J Michael Stracinsky (spelling?) I guess.

This movie, to me, speaks far more to what the kids who saw Ghostbusters in the 80s took away from the movie than what Akroyd and Murray did.

I'm not sure how to articulate it well, but basically this movie doesn't want to remake the first movie. Instead of a superficial structural remake like _Ghostbusters: Answer the Cal_l that just took the basic formula of the 'four funny people tell jokes and fight ghost'.  It want to remake the IMAGE the first movie left in the mind of kids. It seems like it want to tap into that essence more than into the superficial structure.

In my mind, Ghostbuster as a franchise SHOULD be bigger than just the four dudes from the first movie, and waiting on Murray to accept a script instead of forging ahead without him is why we'll never have Egon on the movie screen again. It was, IMO, a mistake to wait to expand its universe. Ghostbuster can easily, by it's simple premise of 'Supernatural Blue Collar Exterminator" be expanded to happen anywhere in the world, featuring any kind of people you might want, thanks to a very VERY simple concept: Franchising opportunity.

You really think that, after proving ghosts are real to the entirety of New York, Venkman wouldn't start selling Ghostbusters franchises all over the place? Answer the Call could have easily have been about a team in Chicago or New-Orleans or plenty of other city all over the world with a rich History to make into its own character. It's not rocket science!


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jul 27, 2021)

BookTenTiger said:


> I loved the concept of "working schlubs" solving supernatural problems from the first film.
> 
> I also think Ghostbusters fits into this really niche comedy genre of Characters Who Don't Belong in the Setting. Bill Murray's character acts like everything is a plumbing problem or something and it's just wonderful. My favorite part is when Sigourney Weaver's character turns into a demon dog and Bill Murray goes, "So, yeah, she's a dog." As if they explains it.
> 
> ...



Totally agreed on all points. Don't forget the added dimension that while they act very blue-collar, they're also academics! And while Egon and Ray seem to relish being scientists, there's no sense that Venkman is smart, or good at anything, really. But the movie is smart enough to not try to unpack the weirdness of that, or to make it part of his "journey." It's just funnier to leave it be.

And hell yes to The Golden Child. Criminally underappreciated.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 27, 2021)

Janine Melnitz is in it!! 
(And a prominent black character)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

Undrave said:


> Sadly, apparently to 'consolidate the brand' they pulled the IDW license basically without fanfare last year or so and now all the comics are no longer on sale on Comixology -_- the IDW comics were basically THE sequel people wanted to see!



That's weird. That was one of their most successful ongoing licenses. What's going to replace that revenue stream for Ghostbusters? They've struggled with videogames over the years and four movies in 40 years isn't a great rate of output.



Undrave said:


> That as the thing with Paul Fieg: he saw it only as a comedy. He saw it as an adult and appreciated it on that level. And in a way, this is also the way the original cast saw the movie when they came back to do Ghostbuster II... and I think it's why it was so disappointing.
> 
> But here's the thing... the first movie was enjoyed by kids for whom ghosts and monsters were scary, the super natural was scary, and the boogey man was still hiding in their closet... and here's this gang of schlub who show you that with enough knowledge and know-how, anyone can face the Darkness and put a stop to it. That impact was important to a whole generation... And that angle was kept for the long running _The Real Ghostbusters_ cartoon. We don't hear it mention much, but that show, and its toyline, did FAR more to crystallize the Ghostbusters in the public consciousness than the repetitive sequel. Hurray for J Michael Stracinsky (spelling?) I guess.
> 
> This movie, to me, speaks far more to what the kids who saw Ghostbusters in the 80s took away from the movie than what Akroyd and Murray did.



This is a really good argument. I don't agree with you about the quality of the Fieg film, but I understand this POV.



Undrave said:


> I'm not sure how to articulate it well, but basically this movie doesn't want to remake the first movie. Instead of a superficial remake like Ghostbusters: Answer the Call that just took the basic formula of the 'four funny people tell jokes and fight ghost'.  It want to remake the IMAGE the first movie left in the mind of kids.
> 
> In my mind, Ghostbuster as a franchise SHOULD be bigger than just the four dudes from the first movie, and waiting on Murray to accept a script instead of forging ahead without him is why we'll never have Egon on the movie screen again. It was, IMO, a mistake to wait to expand its universe. Ghostbuster can easily, by it's simple premise of 'Supernatural Blue Collar Exterminator" be expanded to happen anywhere in the world, featuring any kind of people you might want, thanks to a very VERY simple concept: Franchising opportunity.



It always amazes me this wasn't the approach they took with the Fieg movie.


Undrave said:


> You really think that, after proving ghosts are real to the entirety of New York, Venkman wouldn't start selling Ghostbusters franchises all over the place? Answer the Call could have easily have been about a team in Chicago or New-Orleans or plenty of other city with a rich History to make into its own character. It's not rocket science!



The only hitch is that, at the start of every single movie, the world improbably doesn't believe in the supernatural, which is definitely something they should get rid of.


----------



## Istbor (Jul 27, 2021)

Looks pretty interesting. Plus I mean... Paul Rudd... 

I will probably see it when it comes out.


----------



## Undrave (Jul 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> That's weird. That was one of their most successful ongoing licenses. What's going to replace that Ghostbusters revenue stream for them? They've struggled with videogames over the years and four movies in 40 years isn't a great rate of output.




I have no idea. There's barely any chatter about it that I could find. All we know is that one day the comics were there and the next they were gone with no warning. It's a weird situation and the 'consolidate the brand' thing is mostly speculation at the moment. 

Those comics were insanely good so if you find them in physical form, give them a try! 



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> This is a really good argument. I don't agree with you about the quality of the Fieg film, but I understand this POV.



I wouldn't throw vitriol at the movie, but I wouldn't give it a trophy either. I just find it lacking in depth beyond the surface level jokes. 



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The only hitch is that, at the start of every single movie, the world improbably doesn't believe in the supernatural, which is definitely something they should get rid of.



Oh yeah that was a BIG BIG issue with Ghostbuster II. They were just too obsessed with returning to the status quo from the beginning of the first movie instead of trying to expand the universe. Really disappointing.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 27, 2021)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The only hitch is that, at the start of every single movie, the world improbably doesn't believe in the supernatural, which is definitely something they should get rid of.



The idea that human minds filter out weirdness and replace it with mundanity has been used in Dr Who and other stories for years. 

Not a big deal to think that each generation might think the last event was just urban legend (if the moon landing could be faked, so could a ghost invasion)


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jul 27, 2021)

Undrave said:


> But here's the thing... the first movie was enjoyed by kids for whom ghosts and monsters were scary, the super natural was scary, and the boogey man was still hiding in their closet... and here's this gang of schlub who show you that with enough knowledge and know-how, anyone can face the Darkness and put a stop to it. That impact was important to a whole generation... And that angle was kept for the long running _The Real Ghostbusters_ cartoon. We don't hear it mention much, but that show, and its toyline, did FAR more to crystallize the Ghostbusters in the public consciousness than the repetitive sequel. Hurray for J Michael Stracinsky (spelling?) I guess.
> 
> This movie, to me, speaks far more to what the kids who saw Ghostbusters in the 80s took away from the movie than what Akroyd and Murray did.



I hear you, and I was one of those kids whose mind was blown when the movie came out, and who became way more invested in the cartoon, in part because it was so much heavier on the action than the movies (and also there was just so much more to watch). The Bogeyman episode, the one where Egon suits up and goes into the ghost tank, the one with Cthulhu...scorched into my brain. When I think of Egon, I think of him with that ridiculous blonde pompadour before I think of Harold Ramis. So watching this trailer I got the same sort of tingles you're describing.

But fan-service, especially a very specific metatextual version of fan-service like that, where it's about whether you watched or read or played this tie-in project or another, always winds up feeling hollow to me. I'd rather a movie swing for the fences than settle for a safe single. We have way too many of the latter (staring at endless churn of MCU stuff). This movie looks tropey and recycled as hell, like most fan-service is. Meanwhile, the original Ghostbusters and countless other classics became classics because they were just _so damn weird_.

However, I fully agree about the idea of a Ghostbusters franchise premise, especially if it was all just scams and Ghost Hunter-style reality nonsense (since part of the setting for the movies, as opposed to the cartoon, was that paranormal stuff spikes very occasionally, but is usually non-existent).


----------



## embee (Jul 27, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Original as in, so terrible it made you want to scratch out your own eyeballs. Calling it a comedy is debatable, since that would require writing jokes.
> 
> I'm relieved this is as far away removed from Fieg's abysmal attempt at a reboot. It was an abomination that does not deserve the Ghostbusters name. Plus, allow me to express by hatred for any movie stealing the exact title as an iconic movie, and wearing its skin to fool people into watching it.
> 
> This looks fun. Yes, it seems to indulge heavily in the mythology of the original film, but that is I think what most fans want to see. There is a lot about Ivo Shandor that was explored in the GB Videogame, which really felt like GB3. This movie seems to be doing more of that.



While Feig's Ghostbusters wasn't nearly on par with the original, it most certainly holds its own against Ghostbusters II, which, if we're being honest, was fairly mediocre. In fact, I'd say that Chris Hemsworth's interview scene was funnier than any single part of GB2 and cemented his status as a gifted comic actor. 

My opinion on this... eh. It's a trailer. For a long-delayed movie. That depends on, in no small part, intertextuality. I've seen plenty of good looking trailers for absolutely terrible movies. And even more good looking trailers for merely adequate movies.


----------



## Gradine (Jul 27, 2021)

I liked the Paul Fieg reboot. It wasn't game-changing or anything, but it never deserved the vitriol that was thrown its way. Kate McKinnon in particular stole every scene she was in.

Of course, Ghostbusters II was awful and the first movie, while it _was _game-changing, doesn't always hold up as well. Such is the nature of comedy, though.

This one looks pretty good so far; Paul Rudd is always a treat. I hate that it represents (whether intentionally or not) a repudiation of the 2016 film. This film seems to be tacking towards a more balanced cast, which could do a lot to ease that tension. I'd hate for the misogynistic manbaby crowd to think they're taking a W on this one


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> The idea that human minds filter out weirdness and replace it with mundanity has been used in Dr Who and other stories for years.



Dr. Who is so schizophrenic about this stuff. Sometimes no one knows about aliens, etc., sometimes there are government agencies that know about it and all the heads of state know about it, sometimes everyone knows about it. Even within a single showrunner's era, they can't seem to keep it straight.

It certainly feels like the BBC doesn't have some single office in charge of the brand and whoever is the current showrunners gets to do whatever they like (witness the years it took to bring back Gallifrey which was then immediately destroyed _again_ just recently).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2021)

Gradine said:


> Kate McKinnon in particular stole every scene she was in.



I would go so far as to say she's the best character in any of the movies. Completely wild and crazy in ways that only Murray approached and without the somewhat problematic behavior Venkman displays in the original movie. (Dana would have gotten a restraining order on him -- and probably Louis as well -- nowadays.)


----------



## payn (Jul 28, 2021)

The Fieg reboot was on the other day and I watched the second half again. It helped formed my ideas around why I didn't like it (why I dont like Fieg movies in general.)

The original movie had these intellectual outcasts trying to prove their theories. Most folks treated them like crackpots, because they seemed like it. Though, shortly later they prove that ghosts exist and save the city. They end as heroes of NYC that everybody loves them.

In Feig's ghostbusters you have these outcast intellectuals that folks simply dont like. Their crackpot ideas is only another layer of the hate cake. Even after they prove  ghosts exist, folks still hate them. They save the city and folks still want to bury them. 

Feig's humor has a brand like the  Fharely brothers. Its usually a meanspirited punching down of a bumbling idiot(s) that nobody likes who somehow manages to fail forward and save the day. Fieg's characters are the butt of every joke start to finish. 

That said, I loved the cast of Feig's reboot and all the characters. The jokes just felt beat to death and of course the Fieg formula made it a hard film to like despite having some things going for it.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 28, 2021)

payn said:


> That said, I loved the cast of Feig's reboot and all the characters. The jokes just felt beat to death and of course the Fieg formula made it a hard film to like despite having some things going for it.



when you say all the characters you're including Leslie Jones and Melissa McCarthy? to each his own

I really don't like the type that Jones portrays in all?/most of her characters and I think that, along with what you said about Feigs approach is largely what dragged the whole thing down for me.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 28, 2021)

Payn pretty much sums it up.

Say what you want about Afterlife, but it looks like they at least know what the original film was about. Whether you like the angle of expanding on the Shandor mythos or not, they at least know who Shandor is. I feel Rudd is the right actor to carry this film. I just hope the story is good, and that the rest of the cast has good chemistry. Fan service is fun in moderation, but it cannot carry an entire film. I hope the movie itself is not that shallow.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 28, 2021)

Jack Daniel said:


> Ugh. I guess that in the canonical _Ghostbusters_ universe, it's a small world after all.




Judging by the trailer, they might also be paying hommage to the cartoon and the toys. I don't know if the cartoons are considered canon, but I hope they are. Because as mentioned, they expanded the lore of GB in all directions.

Also, in case you missed this:




Umbran said:


> You think they kept Bill Murray to a script?  Aykroyd, Ramis, Murray, and Moranis all got their starts in _IMPROV_ comedy - Saturday Night Live and SCTV - not scripted comedy.



The original GB seems pretty tightly scripted. As far as I know, there was a lot of adlibbing by especially Murray. But they only kept whatever they thought was the best take, and they didn't let improv fill unscripted scenes, nor let characters ramble on and on.

For example, a few years ago Reitman shared a few outtakes from the scene where Venkman confronts Peck in the mayor's office. He showed takes, in which Murray always stuck to the script, but adlibbed one or two words. There was one take that was arguably even better than the one they ended up using in the film, which had a crowd of fans in stitches, but I think it was written, not adlibbed. I'll see if I can find it.

Found the clip:


There were other takes where Murray mostly improvised his actions, like with Venkman's awkward initial visit to Dana's apartment. Weaver improvised the word "gameshow host", instead of what was in the script. But again, tightly scripted jokes and good writing.

I think improv comedy can only get you so far. For a movie, I don't think it is enough to just have characters ramble. Good comedy scenes don't write themselves, and not all improv is guaranteed to be good improv.


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 28, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Judging by the trailer, they might also be paying hommage to the cartoon and the toys. I don't know if the cartoons are considered canon, but I hope they are. Because as mentioned, they expanded the lore of GB in all directions.
> 
> 
> The original GB seems pretty tightly scripted. As far as I know, there was a lot of adlibbing by especially Murray. But they only kept whatever they thought was the best take, and they didn't let improv fill unscripted scenes, nor let characters ramble on and on.
> ...



one of the DVDs out there has a trivia track in which it points out the differences between what you see and the actual script along with other bits of info. Like with the "let's run some red lights" they did a number of different lines, the script for Weaver was supposed to have been "used car salesman"


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 28, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> one of the DVDs out there has a trivia track in which it points out the differences between what you see and the actual script along with other bits of info. Like with the "let's run some red lights" they did a number of different lines, the script for Weaver was supposed to have been "used car salesman"




Yeah, that was it. "Used car salesman". 

Its a shame they cut the dialog about the nerve-gas, which is hilarious. But I suspect it would have taken the punch out of Venkman's line, so that might be why they cut it.


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 28, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Yeah, that was it. "Used car salesman".
> 
> Its a shame they cut the dialog about the nerve-gas, which is hilarious. But I suspect it would have taken the punch out of Venkman's line, so that might be why they cut it.



here's a full transcript of the tricks and trivia track Spook Central - Ghostbusters DVD Feature-Length Production Notes


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 28, 2021)

CleverNickName said:


> Ugh, ain't that the truth.  I'm still not on speaking terms with a couple of my friends from high school, because of how they reacted to the reboot and the rhetoric they were throwing around on social media.  Certain things can't be unseen, once they're brought out into the open.



Yeah haven’t talked to my best friend from childhood in years, in part because of what he said about the actresses in that movie.

Also the reboot is good.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 28, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah haven’t talked to my best friend from childhood in years, in part because of what he said about the actresses in that movie.
> 
> Also the reboot is good.



I did a rewatch last night and its not bad, the action was fine and story covers the expectations. But at no point did I feel either amused or frightened - which I suppose is the point of comedy horror. Admittedly I am  a few decades older than I was when the first movie came out, but I do think the original had better special effects and the Library Ghost was scarier than the girl in the basement.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 28, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> I did a rewatch last night and its not bad, the action was fine and story covers the expectations. But at no point did I feel either amused or frightened - which I suppose is the point of comedy horror. Admittedly I am  a few decades older than I was when the first movie came out, but I do think the original had better special effects and the Library Ghost was scarier than the girl in the basement.



Even as a kid, I didn't think anything in Ghostbusters was scary except for the painting, and in a couple moments the demon dogs. Everything else was either just funny or fun. 

Perhaps that plays a large role in how the reboot was received.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 29, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Even as a kid, I didn't think anything in Ghostbusters was scary except for the painting, and in a couple moments the demon dogs. Everything else was either just funny or fun.



I don't know, in 1984 this guy was kind of scary. 





One of the things I like about Ghostbusters as an adult is that they really played it straight.  For the most part, the ghosts aren't funny or silly with the comedy mostly stemming from how the characters react to the situations they find themselves in.  Even Slimer, or the ghost we would eventually call Slimer, isn't cute or funny.  He's a disgusting little blob and what makes his initial appearance so funny is Murray's deadpan line, "He slimed me."  Ghostbusters is one of the few big budget special effects movies I can think of that just has fantastic dialogue.  

Ghostbuster II was a disappointment.  I didn't see the more recent reboot because I consider the original to be a near perfect movie.  I also didn't see the remake of Psycho.  I'm not sure how keen I am about seeing Afterlife in theaters but I'll probably try to catch it at some point.  It looks better than Ghostbusters II.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 29, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I don't know, in 1984 this guy was kind of scary.
> View attachment 141379



I guess. I grew up watching Tales From The Crypt, and reading Stephen King, so my perspective is probably a bit different.


MGibster said:


> One of the things I like about Ghostbusters as an adult is that they really played it straight.  For the most part, the ghosts aren't funny or silly with the comedy mostly stemming from how the characters react to the situations they find themselves in.  Even Slimer, or the ghost we would eventually call Slimer, isn't cute or funny.  He's a disgusting little blob and what makes his initial appearance so funny is Murray's deadpan line, "He slimed me."  Ghostbusters is one of the few big budget special effects movies I can think of that just has fantastic dialogue.
> 
> Ghostbuster II was a disappointment.  I didn't see the more recent reboot because I consider the original to be a near perfect movie.  I also didn't see the remake of Psycho.  I'm not sure how keen I am about seeing Afterlife in theaters but I'll probably try to catch it at some point.  It looks better than Ghostbusters II.



Fair enough. I also really like how the ghost and such aren't generally the source of humor, but instead are the source of drama from which the humor stems. Of course, it helps that Dan Aykroyd takes seriously the notion of ghosts.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 29, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I guess. I grew up watching Tales From The Crypt, and reading Stephen King, so my perspective is probably a bit different.



My parents didn't love me either and allowed me to watch those kinds of movies as well.  On the flip side I did get to see Jenny Agutter's shower scene in _An American Werewolf in London_ so maybe it all worked out for the best. Perhaps we should form a support group of some kind?


----------



## pukunui (Jul 29, 2021)

I remember being sick once and watching Ghostbusters II on repeat. I enjoyed it at the time but haven’t seen it since. I did show the original to my girls a few years back and felt it had aged somewhat.

The demon dogs were scary, but I actually think the evil dude in the painting was scarier. I recall being deliciously spooked by the ghost train in the old subway tunnel as well.

I also remember the animated Statue of Liberty fondly.


----------



## Bohandas (Jul 29, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Fieg's Ghostbusters reboot it hated for a reason. I'm not alone in this opinion.
> 
> Don't make excuses for that awful reboot, or act like I have this perspective on movies in general. Fieg's Ghostbusters is one of the worst reboots ever made, and the fact that it bares the Ghostbusters name without shame, makes it extra insulting. Think about it. They didn't call it New Ghostbusters, or Ghostbusters Afterlife. They called it Ghostbusters, as if it were the same as the 80s movie. It was a big sham. They knew how highly praised the original is, and named it the same on purpose to fool people into watching it. That is atrocious.




I agree with you on this.

However, in the interest of fairness I feel compelled to point out that Reitman and Ramis kind of did something similar. They bought the name from Filmation who were already using it for a completely unrelated TV show. They didn't try to pass it off as the same thing like Feig did, but like Feig they did confusingly use the name of an unrelated franchise.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 29, 2021)

Bohandas said:


> I agree with you on this.
> 
> However, in the interest of fairness I feel compelled to point out that Reitman and Ramis kind of did something similar. They bought the name from Filmation who were already using it for a completely unrelated TV show. They didn't try to pass it off as the same thing like Feig did, but like Feig they did confusingly use the name of an unrelated franchise.



Kinda, the 70’s live action ghostbusters lasted one season and was defunct by 1984 when Reitman and Ramis came up with their idea and bought the name to stave off being sued.  The two cartoons that followed both leveraged the success of the 1984 movie Not the orignal 70’s show - but only one was the Real Ghostbusters (despite not being the original ghostbuster )


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 29, 2021)

EDIT: Tonguez beat me to it!

Well, that was very different of course. Sometimes a name is still in use. No one would ever associate the name Ghostbusters with that old tv show, about two men and a gorilla. But since they didn't have the rights, they bought them.

Filmation then immediately made a cartoon with that name to capatilize on the success of the movie and deliberately confuse the audience, forcing them to call the GB cartoon The REAL Ghostbusters. It was pretty low what Filmation did imo. Not illegal, but they deliberately tried to confuse the audience, and made a bunch of toys so parents might buy the wrong Ghostbusters toys.

While shooting the movie, Reitman did multiple takes of any scene where the name Ghostbusters was said or shown, with alternative names. That was in case they couldn't secure the rights.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 29, 2021)

pukunui said:


> I remember being sick once and watching Ghostbusters II on repeat. I enjoyed it at the time but haven’t seen it since. I did show the original to my girls a few years back and felt it had aged somewhat.
> 
> The demon dogs were scary, but I actually think the evil dude in the painting was scarier. I recall being deliciously spooked by the ghost train in the old subway tunnel as well.
> 
> I also remember the animated Statue of Liberty fondly.



I saw Ghostbusters II in the theater as a kid, and it left a big impression on me. The winking painting and the severed heads in the subway, are pretty scary for a kid. The special effects were also mind blowing, and the same chemistry between the actors is still there. As an adult, I really love the scene where the team visits Dana's appartment. It is just full of hilarious dialog. But as a kid, the courthouse battle blew me away. GB2 is a big step up in visual effects from GB1 (which was rushed, which is why some effects seem a bit rough around the edges).

It however suffers from sequelisys: it is a derivitive of the original, following much of the same plot beats. And the stakes aren't as high: the ghost of an ancient sorcerer trapped in a painting, versus godlike being about to end the world.

But I feel there is enough to like. Which is why GB is an enjoyable watch for me.

"I used to have part of a slinky. But I straightened it."


----------



## embee (Jul 29, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I don't know, in 1984 this guy was kind of scary.
> View attachment 141379
> 
> One of the things I like about Ghostbusters as an adult is that they really played it straight.  For the most part, the ghosts aren't funny or silly with the comedy mostly stemming from how the characters react to the situations they find themselves in.  Even Slimer, or the ghost we would eventually call Slimer, isn't cute or funny.  He's a disgusting little blob and what makes his initial appearance so funny is Murray's deadpan line, "He slimed me."  Ghostbusters is one of the few big budget special effects movies I can think of that just has fantastic dialogue.
> ...



To be fair, the "remake" of Psycho (I assume you're speaking of the Gus Van Sant remake) was rightly panned as a shot-for-shot reshooting of the original with different actors, using identical direction and beats, with the main difference being that it was in color. In fact, Van Sant later said that he only did it to f**k with people. So the only point of that remake was some meta-commentary _chazerai_ that served only to troll people.

Now, say what you will about rebooting IPs for "cash grabs," at least a "cash grab" motivation is an honest motive that is true to the reason that Hollywood movies exist. 

Yes, Virginia... Hollywood movies are investment vehicles that are made in the hopes of generating profit for the investors and studios involved. Any artistic value to such work is ancillary to the movie's primary raison d-etre. I acknowledge the cynicism of this view as well as the fact that many of the folk involved make movies because of a love of the craft, but, the fact remains, that the movie itself would not be made but for the hope of profit. 

As such, the Ghostbusters reboot is, from this point of view, about as good as Ghostbusters 2 and, financially speaking, was a moderately successful endeavor.


1Ghostbusters$229,242,9891,506$13,578,1511,339Jun 8, 1984Columbia Pictures2Ghostbusters$128,350,5743,963$46,018,7553,963Jul 15, 2016Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE)3Ghostbusters II$112,494,7382,410$29,472,8942,410Jun 16, 1989Columbia Pictures4Ghostbusters
1985 Re-release$9,389,135990$2,085,116990Aug 23, 1985Columbia Pictures5Ghostbusters
30th Anniversary Release$3,580,343784$1,756,513784Aug 29, 2014Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE)


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 29, 2021)

I think reboots can have plenty of merit, when they improve on the original in some way, or help introduce an old franchise to a new audience. 

Jurassic World continues the plot established in Jurassic Park, but takes a new angle on the formula. What if the park wasn't a failure, and was actually in operation?

Likewise, the new Jumanji movies acknowledge the original, but now take the concept into a videogame instead of a boardgame. 

But then you also have movies such as The Thing (2011), an unnecessary reboot/prequel to John Carpenters classic The Thing from 1982, with some how worse effects. How those terrible effects came to be, is a whole story on its own. But the fact that they named it exactly the same as John Carpenter's classic, requires a special  level of insincerity.

Likewise with the Robocop reboot, which although it changes the story, still leans heavily on the classic whose skin it is wearing. 

I appreciate that Ghostbusters Afterlife is honest about being a different movie from the original. The title itself even implies a reboot that takes place in the same continuety.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 29, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I appreciate that Ghostbusters Afterlife is honest about being a different movie from the original. The title itself even implies a reboot that takes place in the same continuety.



It's a sequel, not a reboot.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 29, 2021)

embee said:


> Yes, Virginia... Hollywood movies are investment vehicles that are made in the hopes of generating profit for the investors and studios involved. Any artistic value to such work is ancillary to the movie's primary raison d-etre. I acknowledge the cynicism of this view as well as the fact that many of the folk involved make movies because of a love of the craft, but, the fact remains, that the movie itself would not be made but for the hope of profit.



And I've got no objection to that.  Like all movies, I'm sure the remake was intended to make money but I bet everyone involved wanted to make a good movie.  I haven't seen it so I can't comment on whether they succeeded or not.  Most people I know who watched it said it was enjoyable at least.  


Imaculata said:


> But then you also have movies such as The Thing (2011), an unnecessary reboot/prequel to John Carpenters classic The Thing from 1982, with some how worse effects. How those terrible effects came to be, is a whole story on its own. But the fact that they named it exactly the same as John Carpenter's classic, requires a special level of insincerity.



That was another movie I had no interest in seeing as it simply looked like a rehash of the original.  And you're right, the special effects debacle is a whole story of its own and likely more entertaining than the movie. 



Morrus said:


> It's a sequel, not a reboot.



And that's why I'm more open to Afterlife than I was to the Ghostbusters reboot.  I've had 32 years to get over the disappointment of Ghostbusters 2 and I feel as though I'm finally ready to move on.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 29, 2021)

Morrus said:


> It's a sequel, not a reboot.




I'd argue it's a bit of both. It is a sequel, in the sense that it follows the continuity of the original two films. But it is a reboot, because it is introducing a whole new cast of main characters.

So.... soft reboot? Requel?


----------



## Undrave (Jul 29, 2021)

embee said:


> To be fair, the "remake" of Psycho (I assume you're speaking of the Gus Van Sant remake) was rightly panned as a shot-for-shot reshooting of the original with different actors, using identical direction and beats, with the main difference being that it was in color. In fact, Van Sant later said that he only did it to f**k with people. So the only point of that remake was some meta-commentary _chazerai_ that served only to troll people.



I briefly studied Danish cinema in a 'World Cinema Class' and that movie was pretty in character for Gus Van Sant. He seems to be quite the character!


----------



## Undrave (Jul 29, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I'd argue it's a bit of both. It is a sequel, in the sense that it follows the continuity of the original two films. But it is a reboot, because it is introducing a whole new cast of main characters.
> 
> So.... soft reboot? Requel?



A 'passing of the torch' sequel?


----------



## embee (Jul 29, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I think reboots can have plenty of merit, when they improve on the original in some way, or help introduce an old franchise to a new audience.



Thank you for literally articulating Ivan Reitman's own reason for Ghostbusters (2016);

*REITMAN:  Well, I’d like to go forward and make new things.  I think Ghostbusters probably should be remade, if we can get it all right.  We’re working on it, so we’ll see. *

Source: Ivan Reitman and Lauren Shuler Donner DAVE Blu-ray Interview 

Let's also be honest that a lot of franchises are one good movie and then a series of terrible movies.

The Jurassic Park franchise is one of the poster children of this. Jaws is another. I think we would all do well to not mythologize the greatness of "franchises" when, in reality, taken as a whole, they are all too often mediocre with focused areas of greatness. 

Star Wars - I'm looking at you:

Ep1 - a terrible movie, 
Ep2 - a even more terrible movie, 
Ep3 - a terrible movie that had a decent part, 
Solo - a waste of a movie that didn't know what it wanted to do
Rogue One - a decent movie that depends on intertextuality, 
Star Wars - a hokey movie that shouldn't work but somehow managed to be a masterpiece
ESB - a very good movie that is the middle part of an overarching story
ROTJ - a solid movie that tied up a lot of loose ends but raised its own issues
Ep 7 - a forgettable reboot of SW that had a couple of bright spots
Ep8 - a deeply schizophrenic movie that had some very good spots, some dismal spots, and a lot of forgettable mediocrity
Ep 9 - a movie without its own internal reason to exist

Alien(s) is yet another, with a steady decline in quality with each additional movie. Many of the Disney Renaissance animated movies went down this route, as did all of the monster movies, kaiju movies, and much of JJ Abrams' filmography (see above). 

When one allows their enjoyment of one movie to shade their feelings of subsequent movies that depend on that movie, it lionizes and villifies movies that don't deserve that treatment.

Ghostbusters (1984) is a legendary film that is rightly regarded as one of the greatest movie comedies. Ghostbusters (2016) suffered from a variety of factors. The original drivers of Ghostbusters (1984) were among those factors. Reitman had been a driver of rebooting the original. Murray didn't want anything to do with it for much of the time. Ackroyd had been more than willing to keep mining the IP. Feig came into it when Reitman decided to leave. His writing partner had already written a previous script and had a good working history with McCarthy, who herself had a long good working history with the other female leads, all of whom are some of the finest comic actors around. 

Ghostbusters (2106) has some fantastic moments. Kevin's interview is one of them. McKinnon's performance was similarly fantastic. And I am genuinely of the opinion that the movie is no worse than Ghostbusters 2. So to say that it's somehow not worthy of the Ghostbusters brand name is a bit disingenuous. 

As to Afterlife, as stated, it's a nice looking trailer. I'm curious as to why it's Reitman's kid directing the movie and not Ivan Reitman himself.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 29, 2021)

Undrave said:


> A 'passing of the torch' sequel?




Yeah, lets go with that.


----------



## Undrave (Jul 29, 2021)

embee said:


> I'm curious as to why it's Reitman's kid directing the movie and not Ivan Reitman himself.



Passing of the torch on both side of the screen?


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 29, 2021)

Undrave said:


> Passing of the torch on both side of the screen?




Possibly. I believe Reitman senior is more active as producer lately, and according to IMDB he is still pretty involved with other Ghostbusters projects.


----------



## TheSword (Jul 29, 2021)

I was genuinely surprised that Paul Feig directed the Ghostbusters reboot. I find it hard to reconcile that so similar a cast and production to Bridesmaids (a film so funny even my dad laughs at it, that hits every punchline expertly) delivered something that missed every single punchline. I wanted to love it, because I love Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig. But I just couldn’t. Sorry. I think it was a comedy that wasn’t funny. I don’t know why 

Looking forward to afterlife though.


----------



## payn (Jul 29, 2021)

Lot of folks mad that Afterlife doesnt appear to be a comedy. I think its brilliant (from the trailer). One of the big mistakes of reboots is trying to emulate too close to the source material. Honor the original elements, but do something fresh and different with them. Get out from under the derivative trap and deliver a new experience with a familiar face.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 29, 2021)

embee said:


> Let's also be honest that a lot of franchises are one good movie and then a series of terrible movies.



Pirates of the Caribbean's ears must be burning!  



embee said:


> Alien(s) is yet another, with a steady decline in quality with each additional movie. Many of the Disney Renaissance animated movies went down this route, as did all of the monster movies, kaiju movies, and much of JJ Abrams' filmography (see above).



Well, with a steady decline in quality with each movie after the second.  While I personally believe _Alien_ to be superior to _Aliens_, the sequel is so good I can understand those who think it's better than the original.  



TheSword said:


> I was genuinely surprised that Paul Feig directed the Ghostbusters reboot. I find it hard to reconcile that so similar a cast and production to Bridesmaids (a film so funny even my dad laughs at it, that hits every punchline expertly) delivered something that missed every single punchline. I wanted to love it, because I love Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig. But I just couldn’t. Sorry. I think it was a comedy that wasn’t funny. I don’t know why



I sometimes wonder at what point in the production of a movie do the actors, producers, and others think they have a hit or dud on their hands?  Mark Hamil has said that they all thought Star Wars was going to be a turkey while they were filming it and were genuinely surprised by its success.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 29, 2021)

It's a popular opinion that sequels are inferior to their original movies, but there are plenty of exceptions (Wrath of Khan, Empire Strikes Back, Fury Road, and The Winter Soldier are the first that come to mind, but I'm sure I could think of more.)  

Ghostbusters II, not so much...


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 29, 2021)

payn said:


> Lot of folks mad that Afterlife doesnt appear to be a comedy. I think its brilliant (from the trailer). One of the big mistakes of reboots is trying to emulate too close to the source material. Honor the original elements, but do something fresh and different with them. Get out from under the derivative trap and deliver a new experience with a familiar face.



I think with Paul Rudd, there will still be plenty of humor. But the trailer does make it seem they are leaning more towards a serious tone, which I have no problems with.


----------



## Gradine (Jul 29, 2021)

While none of them quite reach the level of "good", I recently watched all of the Twilight movies as a lark with my partner and generally speaking they improved in quality each time. Michael Sheen vamping about chewing scenery will improve any production, though


----------



## wicked cool (Jul 29, 2021)

I like how people that think the reboot was awful get thrown into a bucket . I blame the scripts. Sigourney weaver didn’t lose the ability to act it was bad scripts. The alien franchise became the Prometheus movies due to 1 mans flawed vision. Great actors in all but nobody was interested long term in this
There are plenty of exceptions to second movies being just as good or reboots 
Empire strikes back is one of the best sequels-its after that it lost its way for the most part. Heck it’s the thrawn books that carried the franchise for years
Godfather 2-many consider to be better than original
Spider-Man reboots-I find them to be better than most of the originals
Batman-it’s debateable
Star Trek vs new generation-strong debates

90210-reboot crashed and burned . There was no sexism in the reboot. It was just terrible 

Terminator 2-another great sequel


----------



## embee (Jul 29, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I sometimes wonder at what point in the production of a movie do the actors, producers, and others think they have a hit or dud on their hands?  Mark Hamil has said that they all thought Star Wars was going to be a turkey while they were filming it and were genuinely surprised by its success.



Everyone was surprised by its success. Guiness called it a stupid and childish fairy tale (which it ultimately is - farmboy saves princess from the clutches of an evil warlord with the help of a wizard and a pirate).

The stupidest thing ever uttered by a movie executive was "Sure Mr. Lucas... You can keep the merchandising rights and soundtrack royalties." Which is why I side-eye any hate laid at the Ewoks and porgs as a ploy to sell merch; they were no more a ploy to sell merch than were the Jawas. 

Other fits of financial brilliance were from Sir Alec Guiness (or more likely his agent), who opted instead of a negotiated salary to take .025% of ESB's revenues. His estate continues to collect money from it and his take from that movie alone is more than $100 million. 

For less than 60 seconds of screen time.


----------



## BrokenTwin (Jul 29, 2021)

Enjoyed the original, loved the cartoon, was solidly "meh" on the reboot...
Afterlife looks like a pure nostalgia-bait paint-by-numbers popcorn flick. I'll probably watch it once it hits Disney+ or Netflix or where-ever. For Paul Rudd if nothing else.
Be nice if they tied a bit of the reboot in just for the nod, but I'm not holding my breath. A Kate McKinnon cameo would be solid. I found her easily the best part of the reboot, though Chris Hemsworth's ditzy secretary routine was entertaining in its own way.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Jul 29, 2021)

It's funny how beloved Paul Rudd is.

...

I love him too.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 29, 2021)

embee said:


> The stupidest thing ever uttered by a movie executive was "Sure Mr. Lucas... You can keep the merchandising rights and soundtrack royalties." Which is why I side-eye any hate laid at the Ewoks and porgs as a ploy to sell merch; they were no more a ploy to sell merch than were the Jawas.



really? The Jawas kind of miss out the cute factor though, I dont remember anyone kid wanting a cuddly stuffed Jawa to sleep with. Ewoks and Porgs and Banthas however are a winner


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 29, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> really? The Jawas kind of miss out the cute factor though, I dont remember anyone kid wanting a cuddly stuffed Jawa to sleep with. Ewoks and Porgs and Banthas however are a winner








						Jawa™ with 5-in-1 Sound and Blaster | Build-A-Bear Workshop
					

Utinni! You won't have to scavenge to get a big hug from this Jawa™! This plush humanoid has black fur and menacing yellow eyes, plus it comes with its red robe and blaster included. It features a 5-in-1 sound chip so you can hear the distinct sounds of the Tatooine™ tribe at the press of its...




					www.buildabear.com


----------



## Bohandas (Jul 29, 2021)

Re. Ghostbusters 2. Ghostbusters II is a good movie overall that just happens to have a bad first act.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 29, 2021)

embee said:


> So to say that it's somehow not worthy of the Ghostbusters brand name is a bit disingenuous.



I never said it wasn't worthy of the brand name. I said they gave it the exact same title as the 80s original, to deliberately confuse the audience.

Which they did.



Bohandas said:


> Re. Ghostbusters 2. Ghostbusters II is a good movie overall that just happens to have a bad first act.




I can see more problems with it than just the weak first act. With a sequel, you often hope that they either advance the story in some interesting way, or go bigger than the first movie. GBII did neither. They reset the business as if they hadn't saved the world, and then repeat much of the same plot, but with a weaker villain and Dana miraculously being in the middle of it all again. And I can see how the ending is a bit cringe too.

But amongst the flaws, I also see some greatness. Janosh is hilarious,  Venkman gets a lot of great lines, and Winston has a lot more to do and say. The river of slime in the old pneumatic transit is a cool and haunting idea, and Vigo is genuinly creepy.


----------



## embee (Jul 29, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> really? The Jawas kind of miss out the cute factor though, I dont remember anyone kid wanting a cuddly stuffed Jawa to sleep with. Ewoks and Porgs and Banthas however are a winner



They were one of the original Kenner action figures. In fact, they were in the initial batch of 12 released in 1977. 

They were marketing.


----------



## Gradine (Jul 29, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I never said it wasn't worthy of the brand name. I said they gave it the exact same title as the 80s original, to deliberately confuse the audience.
> 
> Which they did.



The film's marketing was very, very up-front about what type of movie it was going to be, and the movie turned out to be... exactly that.

No one was maliciously misleading anyone, and I can't imagine what sort of person would walk into that movie expecting anything different than what the movie turned out to be.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 29, 2021)

Gradine said:


> No one was maliciously misleading anyone, and I can't imagine what sort of person would walk into that movie expecting anything different than what the movie turned out to be.




Walking into it? Probably not. Buying it, or watching it on Netflix? Absolutely. Just watched a young reactor on YT be confused about which Ghostbusters people were so excited about. I totally understand that, when the reboot is at the top of the page.

You don't name your movie exactly as the first movie by accident. I think in this case it is definitely misleading and malicious.

It was so when Robocop did it, or The Thing, or Total Recall. It is a shady practice imo. Just call it something different.


----------



## Gradine (Jul 29, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Walking into it? Probably not. Buying it, or watching it on Netflix? Absolutely.
> 
> You don't name your movie exactly as the first movie by accident. I think in this case it is definitely misleading and malicious.
> 
> It was so when Robocop did it, or The Thing, or Total Recall. It is a shady practice imo. Just call it something different.



I mean... that's... basically how reboots work? I guess that there's a case to be made that this places the bar higher for them, but also, you get the name recognition and some of the fun IP to play with, so it's a tossup. But the process of film reboots is not some mysterious scheme perpetrated by the worst of Hollywood's sundry villains. Nobody is walking into the Judge Dredd reboot asking where Stallone is. Likewise, nobody's walking into theatres in the summer of 2016 wondering "Oh boy, I wonder how often Bill Murray is going to commit sexual harassment in this one!" If you've seen even just one commercial or trailer, you're pretty much going to get exactly what you saw in this film. Nothing more and nothing less. We're not exactly talking about The Rock's Hercules here

Like, rail against reboots as a concept all the live long day, but it's incredibly weird to nefarious motivations to what is a pretty typical process.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 29, 2021)

I'm obviously not railing against reboots. I think that much should be clear by now.

You can make a reboot and not call it the exact same. Hollywood does it all the time.


----------



## Gradine (Jul 30, 2021)

You can also make a reboot _and _call it the exact same. Hollywood does that all the time, as well


----------



## MGibster (Jul 30, 2021)

Gradine said:


> I mean... that's... basically how reboots work? I guess that there's a case to be made that this places the bar higher for them, but also, you get the name recognition and some of the fun IP to play with, so it's a tossup. But the process of film reboots is not some mysterious scheme perpetrated by the worst of Hollywood's sundry villains. Nobody is walking into the Judge Dredd reboot asking where Stallone is.



Did they reboot Dredd?  I saw two different adaptions of the same source material not a reboot.


----------



## Undrave (Jul 30, 2021)

I just recalled that the Ghostbusters reboot, at the very least, gave us this: 
Hehehehe. Better than the actual remake of the song from the movie too...


----------



## Bohandas (Jul 30, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I can see more problems with it than just the weak first act. With a sequel, you often hope that they either advance the story in some interesting way, or go bigger than the first movie. GBII did neither. They reset the business as if they hadn't saved the world, and then repeat much of the same plot, but with a weaker villain and Dana miraculously being in the middle of it all again. And I can see how the ending is a bit cringe too.




I think if they ever do a reboot reboot they should switch the endings. They'd face Vigo first and then in the next one be shut down not because people have stopped believing but because they've damaged the Statue of Liberty (and maybe also the river of slime's been drained so everyone thinks there's nothing left to be attracting ghosts)


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 30, 2021)

Gradine said:


> You can also make a reboot _and _call it the exact same. Hollywood does that all the time, as well



I think you are still missing the point of what I was saying.

In 2008 they released a 4th Rambo film, and instead of just calling it Rambo IV, they called it Rambo. That is so frustrating.


----------



## Undrave (Jul 30, 2021)

Bohandas said:


> I think if they ever do a reboot reboot they should switch the endings. They'd face Vigo first and then in the next one be shut down not because people have stopped believing but because they've damaged the Statue of Liberty (and maybe also the river of slime's been drained so everyone thinks there's nothing left to be attracting ghosts)



That would make SO much more sense... 


Imaculata said:


> I think you are still missing the point of what I was saying.
> 
> In 2008 they released a 4th Rambo film, and instead of just calling it Rambo IV, they called it Rambo. That is so frustrating.



To be fair, the first 'Rambo' movie wasn't titled 'Rambo' but 'First Blood', and it's only when 'Rambo II' came out that it retroactively became 'Rambo I'.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 30, 2021)

Undrave said:


> To be fair, the first 'Rambo' movie wasn't titled 'Rambo' but 'First Blood', and it's only when 'Rambo II' came out that it retroactively became 'Rambo I'.




Oh yeah, I'm well aware. The naming conventions of all of the Rambo movies are a giant mess: 

First Blood
Rambo: First Blood Part II
Rambo III
Rambo
Rambo: Last Blood

Especially that last one gets me. I thought we'd gotten rid of "First Blood" in the title? 





Bohandas said:


> I think if they ever do a reboot reboot they should switch the endings. They'd face Vigo first and then in the next one be shut down not because people have stopped believing but because they've damaged the Statue of Liberty (and maybe also the river of slime's been drained so everyone thinks there's nothing left to be attracting ghosts)




I agree, that would make so much more sense. Because once you have had them face off against what is essentially a god, everything else looks weak in comparison.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 30, 2021)

Die Hard
Die Harder
Die Hard with a Vengeance
Live Free or Die Hard
Die the Hardest You Possibly Can Then Die Again, Pt. II (probably)


----------



## Gradine (Jul 30, 2021)

Games do it too!

Star Wars: Dark Forces
Star Wars: Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight
Star Wars: Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast
Star Wars: Jedi Knight III: Jedi Academy

Bravely Default
Bravely Second
Bravely Default 2


----------



## Undrave (Jul 30, 2021)

Gradine said:


> Bravely Default
> Bravely Second
> Bravely Default 2



Bravely Second had the same characters as Bravely Default, from what I know, but Bravely Default 2 is more like a Final Fantasy sequel in that it's all new characters. 

I wonder if they'll make a Bravely Second 2 afterward?  

However, nothing can be worse than _Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3_


----------



## Gradine (Jul 30, 2021)

Undrave said:


> Bravely Second had the same characters as Bravely Default, from what I know, but Bravely Default 2 is more like a Final Fantasy sequel in that it's all new characters.
> 
> I wonder if they'll make a Bravely Second 2 afterward?
> 
> However, nothing can be worse than _Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3_



Yeah, Bravely Second was a direct sequel. Meanwhile, BD2 is a completely different world/characters but does share pretty much the same gameplay systems, just like Final Fantasy 1 and... like Final Fantasy 4 and... okay, so BD1 and BD2 have more in common, gameplay-wise, than any two Final Fantasy games, but yeah, you get the picture.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 30, 2021)

Undrave said:


> However, nothing can be worse than _Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3_




Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue


----------



## Undrave (Jul 30, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue



Oh right... Kingdom Hearts is just on its own plane of existence. 

Anybody who claims to understand Kingdom Hearts fully is either an eldtrich being from the 7th dimension or plain ol' lying.


----------



## Gradine (Jul 30, 2021)

Kingdom Hearts 0.2: Birth By Sleep - A Fragmentary Passage

The... 8th(?) game in the series?

Which would make Kingdom Hearts 3 the 9th game


----------



## Gradine (Jul 30, 2021)

Undrave said:


> Oh right... Kingdom Hearts is just on its own plane of existence.
> 
> Anybody who claims to understand Kingdom Hearts fully is either an eldtrich being from the 7th dimension or plain ol' lying.



Here's a transcription of me trying to explain the series to my partner:
Me: And then there's Xion, who's the _14th _member of-
Her: Stop.
Me: -Organization-
Her: Just stop.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 30, 2021)

Gradine said:


> Which would make Kingdom Hearts 3 the 9th game




I think Final Fantasy deserves a mention at this point.  Choose your confusion:

Final Fantasy X, followed by Final Fantasy XI, followed by Final Fantasy X-2.  Bonus confusion points for combining Roman and Arabic number systems.

Final Fantasy II in the US is Final Fantasy IV in Japan.  Final Fantasy III in the US is Final Fantasy VI in Japan.  Except Final Fantasy III (Japan) was released in America as Final Fantasy III on the DS (in a remastered version).  A remastered version of Final Fantasy IV (Japan) was also released on the DS as IV.


----------



## Gradine (Jul 30, 2021)

Final Fantasy XIII-2 was one of my favorites


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 30, 2021)

Gradine said:


> Final Fantasy XIII-2 was one of my favorites



Not to be confused with the video game XIII, and it's sequel: XIII²: Covert Identity


----------



## Bohandas (Jul 30, 2021)

embee said:


> Everyone was surprised by its success. Guiness called it a stupid and childish fairy tale (which it ultimately is - farmboy saves princess from the clutches of an evil warlord with the help of a wizard and a pirate).
> 
> The stupidest thing ever uttered by a movie executive was "Sure Mr. Lucas... You can keep the merchandising rights and soundtrack royalties." Which is why I side-eye any hate laid at the Ewoks and porgs as a ploy to sell merch; they were no more a ploy to sell merch than were the Jawas.
> 
> ...




You know, now that you mention it, I think that's why the later Star Wars movies fell so flat. They forgot that it was supposed to be a fairy tale


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 30, 2021)

Bohandas said:


> You know, now that you mention it, I think that's why the later Star Wars movies fell so flat. They forgot that it was supposed to be a fairy tale



Hand-waving psuedo-science "counts" rather than just allowing it to be what it was, Science Fantasy, was a fairly large misstep.


----------



## J.Quondam (Jul 30, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Hand-waving psuedo-science "counts" rather than just allowing it to be what it was, Science Fantasy, was a fairly large misstep.




*PSEUDO-SCIENCE??*









						A Neuroscientist Just Tricked 4 Dodgy Journals Into Accepting a Fake Paper on 'Midi-Chlorians'
					

The force isn't strong with these journals.




					futurism.com


----------



## Bohandas (Jul 31, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Hand-waving psuedo-science "counts" rather than just allowing it to be what it was, Science Fantasy, was a fairly large misstep.



I was thinking more that the story beats were less fairy tale-ish


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 31, 2021)

Might see this one. It's not a reboot. I hate reboots.


----------



## Imaculata (Aug 4, 2021)




----------



## Imaculata (Sep 3, 2021)




----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 3, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Might see this one. It's not a reboot. I hate reboots.



Original Works > Sequels > Reboots > Reboots made by Abrams


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 3, 2021)

Bohandas said:


> You know, now that you mention it, I think that's why the later Star Wars movies fell so flat. They forgot that it was supposed to be a fairy tale



Thats exactly what I said to my brother when Phantom Menace came out - the original movies were fantasy in space, Phantom Menace was too sci-fi


----------



## Morrus (Sep 3, 2021)

embee said:


> The stupidest thing ever uttered by a movie executive was "Sure Mr. Lucas... You can keep the merchandising rights and soundtrack royalties."



Not being precognitive doesn't make one stupid. In no way was this down to stupidity. Do you have Apple shares? Does not having them make you stupid?


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 15, 2021)




----------



## Imaculata (Oct 18, 2021)

Another video from Adam. Also, this movie is getting pretty positive reviews already. It may actually be good.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Oct 18, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Another video from Adam. Also, this movie is getting pretty positive reviews already. It may actually be good.




We must be looking at different reviews:









						Ghostbusters: Afterlife review – a slimy, stinking corpse of a sequel
					

Jason Reitman takes over his father’s franchise and immediately tanks it with a tonally misjudged blend of fan service and bizarrely played-straight spectacle




					www.theguardian.com
				












						Ghostbusters: Afterlife Is a Reanimated Corpse
					

But hey, people love zombies.




					www.vulture.com
				












						Ghostbusters: Afterlife Review: Great Until It's Derailed By Fan Service
					

The Jason Reitman directed sci-fi sequel starring Carrie Coon and Paul Rudd opens November 19. io9 reviews.




					gizmodo.com
				












						'Ghostbusters: Afterlife' is a gloomy nostalgia trip through the ruins of American culture
					

Jason Reitman takes up his father's legacy in the latest attempt to revive the 'Ghostbusters' franchise.




					ew.com
				




Granted, there are some good reviews out there--I know I'm always waiting with bated breath to hear what the finest minds of IGN have to say--but it's by no means a critical darling. And the problems critics are raising are exactly what some of us were worried about based on the trailers--an overdose of fan service. Though I guess that describes most of the MCU at this point, so maybe this'll be a hit, too. If nothing else the most vocal of the Ghostbuster reboot haters can finally feel _seen_!


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 18, 2021)

Ouch, yeah those reviews are not kind.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 18, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> We must be looking at different reviews:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Guardian reviewers tends to be pretty harsh.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife is still running 82% positive on RottenTomatoes. That's with 33 reviews counted. So we'll see how it all sorts out, it's early.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Oct 18, 2021)

billd91 said:


> The Guardian reviewers tends to be pretty harsh.
> Ghostbusters: Afterlife is still running 82% positive on RottenTomatoes. That's with 33 reviews counted. So we'll see how it all sorts out, it's early.



Rotten Tomatoes can be a bit sketchy anytime, but especially when something hasn’t hit a ton of critics. If you check the Top Critics reviews on there, which filters out stuff like small or personal blogs, there are a whole lotta splats. Even the NY Post’s review, which I think RT considers Fresh based on whatever mysterious calculation, calls the movie “watchable.” Praise doesn’t get much fainter.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 18, 2021)

Eh, I’m going to see it whatever the reviews say. I’ll decide for myself.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 18, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> We must be looking at different reviews:
> 
> 
> 
> Granted, there are some good reviews out there











						Ghostbusters: Afterlife takes a Force Awakens approach to nostalgia
					

It brings in a new generation to share everything fans may feel about this franchise




					www.polygon.com
				












						Ghostbusters Afterlife Film Review Entertaining Sequel-Reboot Dazzles While Still Feeling Familiar
					

Jason Reitman pays homage to his father's 1984 remake by both updating it and borrowing from it as much as possible




					www.thewrap.com
				












						Ghostbusters: Afterlife Pays Homage to Classic while Being Its Own Film
					

Ghostbusters: Afterlife is a continuation of the original films that follows a new generation of characters on the hunt for ghosts.




					nerdreactor.com
				




Also given how well it seems to have been received by the fans at NYCC, I think it will be fine


----------



## payn (Oct 18, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Eh, I’m going to see it whatever the reviews say. I’ll decide for myself.



Right, a film like this is going to have a ton of legacy baggage. The best way is to just judge for yourself.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Oct 18, 2021)

One of my favorite recurring themes in fandom/geekdom: folks loudly touting the good reviews for a much-anticipated release when the reviews are, in fact, good...and then saying, "Ah, who needs reviews anyway!?" when they're not.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 18, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> One of my favorite recurring themes in fandom/geekdom: folks loudly touting the good reviews for a much-anticipated release when the reviews are, in fact, good...and then saying, "Ah, who needs reviews anyway!?" when they're not.



You are very clever.

And having shown me the error of my ways you have convinced me to reverse my decision and not see the film.

Wait. No. The opposite thing.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Oct 18, 2021)

Morrus said:


> You are very clever.
> 
> And having shown me the error of my ways you have convinced me to reverse my decision and not see the film.
> 
> Wait. No. The opposite thing.



Ah yes, my mission in life, to make sure people _don't_ see a movie!

Everyone should always see whatever they want. I'm just trying to point out how folks tend to use reviews in these kinds of situations, or boldly proclaim that reviews don't matter, etc., as though the point of critics is simply to tell people whether to watch something or not. The better of those reviews I linked to have interesting things to say about fan service and nostalgia. They're about as interested in whether you personally are going to see it as I am (no offense, of course).


----------



## Morrus (Oct 18, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> They're about as interested in whether you personally are going to see it as I am (no offense, of course).



Weird thread to be participating in, or person to be responding too, then. .shrug:


----------



## MarkB (Oct 18, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> One of my favorite recurring themes in fandom/geekdom: folks loudly touting the good reviews for a much-anticipated release when the reviews are, in fact, good...and then saying, "Ah, who needs reviews anyway!?" when they're not.



As opposed to the ones loudly touting the poor reviews for a release they've decided in advance will be garbage, and dismissing them if they're positive?


----------



## payn (Oct 18, 2021)

MarkB said:


> As opposed to the ones loudly touting the poor reviews for a release they've decided in advance will be garbage, and dismissing them if they're positive?



Yeap, two can certainly play at that game.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 19, 2021)

Reviews really only matter if you're on the fence imho. Generally they're useless imho. 

 More inclined to go with word of mouth.


----------



## AtomicPope (Oct 19, 2021)

I'm on the fence for this one.  I didn't like the reboot and Akroyd's criticism of Paul Fiege made more sense after seeing it.



> "[_Ghostbusters_] made a lot of money around the world but just cost too much, making it economically not feasible to do another one. So that’s too bad. The director, he spent too much on it. He didn’t shoot scenes we suggested to him and several scenes that were going to be needed and he said, ‘Nah, we don’t need them.’ Then we tested the movie and they needed them and he had to go back. About $30 to $40-million in reshoots. So he will not be back on the Sony lot any time soon."




That's a LOT of money on reshoots, which tells me there was no clear plan from the director.  But enough about that.

The problem I have with reboots are the same problem I have with George Lucas "remastering" Star Wars and having Han shoot second.  People change.  Art is a product of its time.  When Lucas went back to Star Wars he was a different man.  The new George wanted to tell a different story so he did it by rewriting the original and completely ruining Han Solo's story arc from an untrustworthy scoundrel to a stalwart friend.

Why would I think Ghostbusters will be any different?

Also, Finn Wolfhard is growing way too fast.  He's going to be the size of Stay Puft if they have any reshoots.


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 19, 2021)

I think this movie will be just fine.

As long as they don't throw in a CGI Harold Ramis, it will be just fine....

...just fine... _-nervous twitching-_


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Oct 23, 2021)

billd91 said:


> The Guardian reviewers tends to be pretty harsh.



And are known for looking down on Science Fiction and Fantasy.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Oct 23, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I think this movie will be just fine.
> 
> As long as they don't throw in a CGI Harold Ramis, it will be just fine....
> 
> ...just fine... _-nervous twitching-_



As a free floating full torso apparition?


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 23, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> As a free floating full torso apparition?




I was thinking a free floating fully uncanny valley apparition. XD


----------



## Blue Orange (Oct 24, 2021)

I _want_ to see a reanimated CGI Harold Ramis.

I've heard movies with a '4' in the name tend to do poorly...and that's _before_ the Chinese market became a big thing. (The number 4 is really bad luck in China, worse than 13 here.) So I think that's why they change the name when the fourth movie comes out.

Critics and moviegoers often diverge on Rotten Tomatoes. In general you'll see high-critic, low-moviegoer scores with 'message' movies that appeal to critics or artistically-challenging films that don't appeal to the public, and low-critic, high-moviegoer scores with franchises considered 'lowbrow' (look at many horror movie installments) or movies that wind up getting coded as 'conservative' for whatever reason (a lot of Clint Eastwood's stuff, for instance, or the recent Alita movie).


----------



## Imaculata (Nov 2, 2021)




----------



## billd91 (Nov 2, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> I _want_ to see a reanimated CGI Harold Ramis.



Oh, god, no. I think there are serious problems with creating new material with the animated, CGI images of dead people who have not consented their presence or use.


----------



## Imaculata (Nov 2, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Oh, god, no. I think there are serious problems with creating new material with the animated, CGI images of dead people who have not consented their presence or use.




Both ethically, artistically, and visually.

Very rarely is it done in a way that isn't extremely jarring.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 3, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> I _want_ to see a reanimated CGI Harold Ramis.
> 
> I've heard movies with a '4' in the name tend to do poorly...and that's _before_ the Chinese market became a big thing. (The number 4 is really bad luck in China, worse than 13 here.) So I think that's why they change the name when the fourth movie comes out.
> 
> Critics and moviegoers often diverge on Rotten Tomatoes. In general you'll see high-critic, low-moviegoer scores with 'message' movies that appeal to critics or artistically-challenging films that don't appeal to the public, and low-critic, high-moviegoer scores with franchises considered 'lowbrow' (look at many horror movie installments) or movies that wind up getting coded as 'conservative' for whatever reason (a lot of Clint Eastwood's stuff, for instance, or the recent Alita movie).




 I'm sceptical if scores above 9.0 or the equivalent and very sceptical when the scores are approaching 9.5.

 Otherwise
 Lowbrow= low scores. 
Historical drama with a message= high score.

 Critics are essentially snobs and Rotten Tomatoes is useless. Movie is ok gets a thumb up but is it 6.5 or 9.5 good, doesn't matter.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> I'm sceptical if scores above 9.0 or the equivalent and very sceptical when the scores are approaching 9.5.
> 
> Otherwise
> Lowbrow= low scores.
> ...



At least they also give an "Audience Score." Not that it's any more accurate, as trolls can seriously screw over that rating, but it tends to indicate _something_ if the two ratings are wildly dissimilar.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 3, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> At least they also give an "Audience Score." Not that it's any more accurate, as trolls can seriously screw over that rating, but it tends to indicate _something_ if the two ratings are wildly dissimilar.




 Average the two scores. Add 10% if it's getting review bombed. Take off 10% if it's an arty farty critic darling.


----------



## Imaculata (Nov 3, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Critics are essentially snobs and Rotten Tomatoes is useless.




I wouldn't say it is useless. I tend to look not so much at the ratings, but at the actual reviews. If multiple people share the same complaint about a movie, that tells you something. I tend to ignore "critics".


----------



## payn (Nov 3, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> At least they also give an "Audience Score." Not that it's any more accurate, as trolls can seriously screw over that rating, but it tends to indicate _something_ if the two ratings are wildly dissimilar.



Its true, you can get good reads on where a film stands by the cross examination. Low critic score but high audience usually indicates a poorly executed film that has a lot of emotional investment by a dedicated fan base. Sometimes, that is appealing if I'm one of those fans. Either way, its good to know what type of experience I'm in for.


----------



## Blue Orange (Nov 3, 2021)

payn said:


> Its true, you can get good reads on where a film stands by the cross examination. Low critic score but high audience usually indicates a poorly executed film that has a lot of emotional investment by a dedicated fan base. Sometimes, that is appealing if I'm one of those fans. Either way, its good to know what type of experience I'm in for.




Indeed, I actually find the interaction of the two useful, as I can divide the movies into quadrants. (Ninths if you count the middle of the range.) Artsy message movie? Cheesy popcorn fun? Overall well-done audience-pleaser? Just a bad movie? More info than just 'good and bad'.


----------



## GreyLord (Nov 3, 2021)

I normally trust audience scores FAR more than Critic scores.

A prime example is when the Mummy came out (decades ago).  Critics razed it, gave it lower scores.  Audiences LOVED it.

I enjoyed it tremendously...wondered what was wrong with the Critics.

Similar thoughts have popped up sometimes today, it seems the Critics are very, very, wrong in many instances.  It amazes me how they can all agree on some movies where the audience absolutely does not agree with them (Especially when critics say something is terrible, but audiences absolutely love it).  It just tells me that Critics tend to have terrible tastes compared to the general public...


----------



## CleverNickName (Nov 3, 2021)

I treat critics and reviews as just another form of entertainment.  They are just some rando's opinion, after all, and they usually don't match my own.  They're fun to read (or watch; I follow a couple of reviewers on YouTube).

I'm dubious about audience ratings, though.  For the most part they are pretty reliable, and I trust them more than I trust critics to match my own preferences and tastes.  BUUUUUT.  I've also seen the "mob rule" mentality really take over on certain movies and websites, and contaminate the audience rating pool.  The more controversial the movie, the worse it seems to get (take the previous Ghostbusters move, for example.)  So if a movie has thousands upon thousands of votes, all of them on opposing ends of the spectrum and within a week of each other...yeah, probably not going to put much stock in those audience ratings.


----------



## payn (Nov 3, 2021)

Some folks are fine with a simple thumbs up or down. The context of the criticism matters to critics and aficionados more. Different strokes'...


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 3, 2021)

I'm excited for the movie. 

I'm looking forward to watching it.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 3, 2021)

GreyLord said:


> I normally trust audience scores FAR more than Critic scores.
> 
> A prime example is when the Mummy came out (decades ago).  Critics razed it, gave it lower scores.  Audiences LOVED it.
> 
> ...



I find it weird the way your refer to “Critics” with a capital C like they’re some kind of monolithic entity. I’ve very rarely seen a film where every critic agreed. Critics are like any other columnist — you find the ones you like, whose interests and tastes seem aligned with yours. Or not. But they aren’t some weird Borg collective with a single thoughtmind.


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 3, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I find it weird the way your refer to “Critics” with a capital C like they’re some kind of monolithic entity. I’ve very rarely seen a film where every critic agreed. Critics are like any other columnist — you find the ones you like, whose interests and tastes seem aligned with yours. Or not. *But they aren’t some weird Borg collective with a single thoughtmind.*




I believe that to be true.

However, here in the US, there are times when it appears to be true [that there is a hivemind] whenever certain actors and/or certain opinions on social/political issues are involved.

Even when it's an issue upon which I agree with the critics, it's difficult to not see bias when literally every critic review rates something "100%," yet the audience score sits at "26%."









						Hannah Gadsby: Nanette
					

Australian comic Hannah Gadsby reshapes standard stand-up by pairing punchlines with personal revelations on gender, sexuality and childhood turmoil.




					www.rottentomatoes.com


----------



## Blue Orange (Nov 3, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> I believe that to be true.
> 
> However, here in the US, there are times when it appears to be true [that there is a hivemind] whenever certain actors and/or certain opinions on social/political issues are involved.
> 
> ...




A lot of the politically charged things get review-bombed (reviews submitted by people who haven't seen the thing in question but will submit a review for political reasons).


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I find it weird the way your refer to “Critics” with a capital C like they’re some kind of monolithic entity. I’ve very rarely seen a film where every critic agreed. Critics are like any other columnist — you find the ones you like, whose interests and tastes seem aligned with yours. Or not. But they aren’t some weird Borg collective with a single thoughtmind.



I found a different way of handling it. If critics seem to be universally panning a movie, I put it on my "must watch" list. I'm rarely disappointed.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 3, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> I found a different way of handling it. If critics seem to be universally panning a movie, I put it on my "must watch" list. I'm rarely disappointed.



How odd. Well, if it works for you.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 3, 2021)

GreyLord said:


> I normally trust audience scores FAR more than Critic scores.
> 
> A prime example is when the Mummy came out (decades ago).  Critics razed it, gave it lower scores.  Audiences LOVED it.
> 
> ...




 Earlier poster nah led it with highbrow and low brow movies. 

 Movies with high critic scores are for people who like champagne cocktails, kale salad, drive a Prius and own an iPhone.

 Audience scores are for everyone else.


----------



## GreyLord (Nov 4, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I find it weird the way your refer to “Critics” with a capital C like they’re some kind of monolithic entity. I’ve very rarely seen a film where every critic agreed. Critics are like any other columnist — you find the ones you like, whose interests and tastes seem aligned with yours. Or not. But they aren’t some weird Borg collective with a single thoughtmind.



Even the Mummy didn't have EVERY critic agree, but the overall critic's reviews put it lower on their scale at around a C rating, while audience reviews at the time (20 years ago) put it in the 90 percentile.

I think the cases I have the worst situations are where reviewers rate something as mediocre or bad while most of the rest of the people who watch it rate it as awesome or great!  That's where we see a disconnect.

I do find it interesting that if you go ahead into the future, the reviewers seem to change their outlook or review of a movie that was universally loved by audiences to align more with audience views than what it was originally in some cases.  (The Mummy didn't get this fate though, it got rated lower by audiences as time passed till now it is a 75% on Rotton Tomatoes...reviewers seem to keep the same score on that one.  You can see even a bigger divide on metacritic, but general audience is still at 87% or thereabouts these days.)

I find similar things with Video games as well...soo...

Either way, I'm looking forward to the New Ghostbusters movie.  It looks interesting at least. 

(PS:  Unpopular opinion as it is, I also enjoyed the last Ghostbusters movie that was made and actually have it on DVD on my shelf).


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 4, 2021)

Brandon Fraser mummy was kind of sonbad it's good. It was self aware and was just fun. 

 Type of movie critics hate though.


----------



## Imaculata (Nov 4, 2021)

GreyLord said:


> I do find it interesting that if you go ahead into the future, the reviewers seem to change their outlook or review of a movie that was universally loved by audiences to align more with audience views than what it was originally in some cases.



I see this quite often. Critics pan a movie, the audience praises it. Then it becomes a piece of highly praised movie history and they change their mind about it.

Good I suppose, that they change their mind. But why even pay attention to critic reviews if they can't recognize a piece of Hollywood history when they see it? Critics like Ciskel and Ebert panned Aliens because "it's about a child being put in danger", while everyone else can recognize it for one of the best sequels and action movies ever made. Then what use are film critic reviews?

*Other great movies that got panned by critics:*

Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, Predator, Home Alone, It's a Wonderful Life, The Shining, Psycho, The Excorcist, Halloween, Fight Club Jumanji, Starship Troopers, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Forest Gump, Titanic, 2001 a Space Oddysey, Godfather part 2, Inception, Gladiator, Jaws, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Apocalypse Now, Alien, The Shawshank Redemption, The Matrix, ET, The Sixth Sense, Black Swan, Reservoir Dogs, No Country for Old Men, Se7en.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 4, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I see this quite often. Critics pan a movie, the audience praises it. Then it becomes a piece of highly praised movie history and they change their mind about it.
> 
> Good I suppose, that they change their mind. But why even pay attention to critic reviews if they can't recognize a piece of Hollywood history when they see it? Critics like Ciskel and Ebert panned Aliens because "it's about a child being put in danger", while everyone else can recognize it for one of the best sequels and action movies ever made. Then what use are film critic reviews?




 I explained it upthread. They're for people who like kale salad, drive a Prius, own an iPhone and like champagne cocktails.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 4, 2021)

INVERTED SNOBBERY | Meaning & Definition for UK English | Lexico.com


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 4, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> INVERTED SNOBBERY | Meaning & Definition for UK English | Lexico.com




 Beer. 

Red Blooded - Lion Red | Commercial | NZ On Screen


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 4, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Beer.
> 
> Red Blooded - Lion Red | Commercial | NZ On Screen



Michael Hurst looks a little odd in mascara.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 4, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Michael Hurst looks a little odd in mascara.




 Heh yeah twas a while ago as well.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 4, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Good I suppose, that they change their mind. But why even pay attention to critic reviews if they can't recognize a piece of Hollywood history when they see it? Critics like Ciskel and Ebert panned Aliens because "it's about a child being put in danger", while everyone else can recognize it for one of the best sequels and action movies ever made. Then what use are film critic reviews?



What use is any opinion piece? You're either interested or you're not. You read it or you don't, just like any article. No other utility is required. What use is this post?

I find it interesting to see what others thought of things I've seen. That's one use for me personally.


----------



## payn (Nov 4, 2021)

GreyLord said:


> Even the Mummy didn't have EVERY critic agree, but the overall critic's reviews put it lower on their scale at around a C rating, while audience reviews at the time (20 years ago) put it in the 90 percentile.
> 
> I think the cases I have the worst situations are where reviewers rate something as mediocre or bad while most of the rest of the people who watch it rate it as awesome or great!  That's where we see a disconnect.
> 
> I do find it interesting that if you go ahead into the future, the reviewers seem to change their outlook or review of a movie that was universally loved by audiences to align more with audience views than what it was originally in some cases.  (The Mummy didn't get this fate though, it got rated lower by audiences as time passed till now it is a 75% on Rotton Tomatoes...reviewers seem to keep the same score on that one.  You can see even a bigger divide on metacritic, but general audience is still at 87% or thereabouts these days.)



That might be an instance where the movie hits certain notes that resonated with audiences at the time, but eventually lowers closer to its actual standard. I loved _Independence Day _when it dropped. I had so much fun with that movie at the theater. Today, I cant even handle more than 10 min of it.

Time can change perspectives and it also changes critical consensus. A lot of cutting edge material gets panned because its pushing the boundaries. Sometimes, its dreck and sometimes its the next level. Sometimes, a piece of work is just an amusement ride of fan service and its not trying to move the needle in any particular direction. A critic, however, always has their eye on the needle and is going to report under such criteria.  


GreyLord said:


> I find similar things with Video games as well...soo...



Video Games are an entirely different animal. Usually, there is a 10 point scale where I have never seen a critic go lower than 7 or maybe a 6. Audience reviewers? I hardly seen anything above 4 . Audience reviews of VGs are ridiculous. Often times, they have some type of user malfunction or hardware incompatibility that inexplicably knocks their review to the bottom. I find video game review to be entirely unhelpful most of the time.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 9, 2021)

One last Trailer


----------



## wicked cool (Nov 10, 2021)

i saw the latest clip. im intrigued


----------



## Jack Daniel (Nov 10, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> One last Trailer






			
				Dr Venkman said:
			
		

> Hey; have you missed us?


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 10, 2021)

AtomicPope said:


> I'm on the fence for this one.  I didn't like the reboot and Akroyd's criticism of Paul Fiege made more sense after seeing it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Isn't a different story a good thing, when it is a very different timeline and characters? Don't we want this to be a different story?


----------



## billd91 (Nov 10, 2021)

GreyLord said:


> I do find it interesting that if you go ahead into the future, the reviewers seem to change their outlook or review of a movie that was universally loved by audiences to align more with audience views than what it was originally in some cases.  (The Mummy didn't get this fate though, it got rated lower by audiences as time passed till now it is a 75% on Rotton Tomatoes...reviewers seem to keep the same score on that one.  You can see even a bigger divide on metacritic, but general audience is still at 87% or thereabouts these days.)



Well, yeah, the critics' score stays the same. Published critics aren't still reviewing the 1999 movie. It would be a waste of time and resources for their employers if they did 20 years on when it's long out of the theaters. The audience score on RottenTomatoes, however, stays open since people can still get via DVD/streaming and watch it.

Ultimately, on RottenTomatoes, 61% critics and 75% audience are largely in agreement. It's over the threshold to be marked "fresh" by the critics and is, essentially, a rating amplified by a good score from the audience. The 48/8.7 ratings from the critics/audience on Metacritic aren't in agreement and may indicate weaknesses in Metacritic's method - at least for The Mummy.


----------



## AtomicPope (Nov 11, 2021)

Zaukrie said:


> Isn't a different story a good thing, when it is a very different timeline and characters? Don't we want this to be a different story?



You've completely missed the point. Completely.


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 11, 2021)

AtomicPope said:


> You've completely missed the point. Completely.



Enlighten me. What was your point?


----------



## AtomicPope (Nov 12, 2021)

Zaukrie said:


> Enlighten me. What was your point?



The problem I have with reboots are the same problem I have with George Lucas "remastering" Star Wars and having Han shoot second.  People change.  Art is a product of its time.  When Lucas went back to Star Wars he was a different man.  The new George wanted to tell a different story so he did it by rewriting the original and completely ruining Han Solo's story arc from an untrustworthy scoundrel to a stalwart friend.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 12, 2021)

Getting back to Ghostbusters, there are two post-credit scenes.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 8, 2022)

Well, I've finally seen it. I didn't want to see it in the theater during a deadly epidemic, so I waited for a home media release. I've got a lot of thoughts about it, but let me start with a none-spoiler list of what I liked and disliked. Please let me know what you thought of the movie as well. Some minor spoilers beware.

*What I liked:*

Miles better than that other reboot (not a high bar, I admit)
They decided to not make this a comedy, which was a wise choice.
It nails the feeling of Ghostbusters.
The Ghostbusting equipment is as cool as I remember it from my childhood.
The practical effects and visual effects are both really good.
The sets and props look great.
It is shot and edited well.
Mckenna Grace is really good.
A great soundtrack.
A really solid first act.

*What I disliked:*

The trailer pretty much spoils the entire movie in chronological order.
A cringy amount of fan service.
Pacing issues.
Constant callbacks and quoting the original movie.
Often using the same soundtrack as the original movie, to the point of annoyance.
Copying the entire last act of the original movie.
Several characters do not have a whole lot to do.
A terrible exposition scene which pretty much implodes the movie.
The kids seem too knowledgable. Both technically, and about Ghostbusting. As if they saw the movies too.
The movie seems to not only ignore the other reboot, but also Ghostbusters II, which is weird.
The plot has a few problems.
There is an odd final showdown that seems like it needed more rewrites.
Awful cameos from the original cast. Most of them did not age well, and don't act well.
One unsettling cameo which raises all manner of ethical questions about movie making.

*Below, I will go into a bit more detail. Big spoilers ahead!*



Spoiler



The movie starts off really strong. The characters are all likeable, and both the setting and mood are a welcome change from the original movies. The movie focuses a lot on the Ghostbusting tech, giving us long closeups of the props. It is perhaps a bit overindulgent in this respect, but I appreciate it, because I love the tech so much. The original soundtrack (of GB1) is used a bit too much, which is jarring at times. The full soundtrack however, has delightful riffs on the original soundtrack. I also noticed reusing sound effects from GB1, for more than just the tech. Since I have a very strong memory for sound effects, this was jarring to me.

But it all kind of collapses in on itself as soon as Dan Aykroyd makes a cameo as Ray Stance. The exposition is terrible here, and the acting by Aykroyd is not great. When done well, an exposition scene can fly by unnoticed. But when it is done poorly, the dialog does not flow naturally, and it takes you out of the movie. The plot also raises some red flags here. Apparently we are lead to believe that Egon split from the rest of the Ghostbusters, because they didn't believe his ideas of the approaching end of the world.... you know, despite them all living through two such world ending events. This does not seem believable. I'm fine with the idea of the Ghostbusters having a falling out, but this was just poorly written.

From this point it starts feeling like the movie is just rushing over a lot of things. The kids some how are all technical geniuses, and seem to understand Ghostbusting a bit too quickly, to the point where they even start classifying ghosts like Ray does in the original movies. 

The pacing is a bit uneven. The first act moves slowly, which is good. Seeing the kids slowly discover the old Ghostbusting tech is the best part of the film. But once the movie starts moving towards it's final act, things move a bit too hastily, which ultimately makes the ending feel a bit unsatisfying. I get that they wanted to bring Gozer and his/her terror dogs back. They are iconic. And since Gozer wasn't actually defeated in the first movie, it makes sense that Shandor and his cult had prepared other means for bringing the Destructor back. All that I don't have a problem with. But did it have to be the exact same temple? Did they need to recreate the exact same scene with the Keymaster and Gatekeeper transforming into terror dogs, as in the original film? And apparently Shandor is still alive, or undead? His cameo seemed a bit random, like an unfleshed out concept that some how stuck around in the script despite numerous rewrites.

But despite the movie having a great final location in the mine, the final showdown takes place in front of the porch of the old farmhouse. This felt really weird to me. What a bizarre and underwhelming location for a final showdown with Gozer. I did appreciate the updated look for Gozer. She looks much creepier, and is no longer wearing a cheap fluffy costume. The terror dogs also look great as animatronics. And Bill Murray seemed to actually care about giving a decent performance, despite his cameo being really brief. But how bizarre to build up the kids as the new Ghostbusters, only to have the original cast come in for the final show down. It felt very out of place.

Of course, we have to talk about CGI Harold Ramis. To be fair, the CGI here was really good. This is one of the stronger looking recreations of a dead celebrity in a movie so far. But it also raises some ethical concerns. I felt very uncomfortable watching it. Sure, the movie is dedicated to Harold, but he didn't give permission for his likeness to be used in this movie. I think they could have gotten away with not actually showing him, and just making him a ball of light or something. But having this clearly dead actor, who did not give permission to be in this movie, act in front of the rest of the elderly cast... yikes. I don't like it. 

There's two after credits scenes, with one being B-roll footage of Harold Ramis which got cut from from the original film. It is jarring, because you can feel why it was cut. It 'feels' like a deleted scene, and not in a good way. I did love the final scene between Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver, even if it feels very unconnected to the rest of the film. And Winston is apparently cleaning up the old Firehouse?

I noticed that they are still using the Ghost Corp logo for this, so clearly Sony Pictures is determined to make this the new GB franchise (after the other reboot imploded). I want to see more GB movies, but honestly I hope they let go of all the cameos and call backs, and just commit to doing something new.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 11, 2022)

Imaculata said:


> They decided to not make this a comedy, which was a wise choice.
> It nails the feeling of Ghostbusters.



This seems contradictory.


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 11, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This seems contradictory.



its not contradictory, the original Ghostbusters is a classic because it is more than just a comedy - it combines horror, adventure and comedy but at its heart it has a unique defining 'spirit'   that provides the emotional hook for audiences.

The new movie was able to latch on to the nostalgia of that emotional hook and carry the legacy via a family drama that is feel good but has very little comedy


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 11, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This seems contradictory.



It may seem that way, but in order for a Ghostbusters movie to feel like a Ghostbusters movie, it doesn't need to be a comedy.

And in fact, considering how good a comedy the original was... You're kind of setting yourself up for failure if you try to repeat it. So the bold choice to focus on adventure, rather than comedy, really works for GB Afterlife.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 12, 2022)

Tonguez said:


> its not contradictory, the original Ghostbusters is a classic because it is more than just a comedy - it combines horror, adventure and comedy but at its heart it has a unique defining 'spirit'   that provides the emotional hook for audiences.
> 
> The new movie was able to latch on to the nostalgia of that emotional hook and carry the legacy via a family drama that is feel good but has very little comedy



I’ve a hard time believing that a movie that isn’t especially humorous can have the same feel as the outright hilariously comical Ghostbusters.  

I suspect that what it captured was folks’ nostalgia and reverence for the franchise and the place it has in the halls of their memories.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 12, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’ve a hard time believing that a movie that isn’t especially humorous can have the same feel as the outright hilariously comical Ghostbusters.
> 
> I suspect that what it captured was folks’ nostalgia and reverence for the franchise and the place it has in the halls of their memories.




Na it was just a good fun film. Plenty of reboots fail because they just throw in nostalgia bait in thee absence of a compelling story, likeable characters etc.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 12, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Na it was just a good fun film. Plenty of reboots fail because they just throw in nostalgia bait in thee absence of a compelling story, likeable characters etc.



I don’t doubt it’s good. I doubt that it has the same feel as the original. Nor should it. It’s a new movie that directly follows on from the older story.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 12, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t doubt it’s good. I doubt that it has the same feel as the original. Nor should it. It’s a new movie that directly follows on from the older story.




 It had quite a few funny moments. Different vibe just on the location if nothing else. 

 Convinced the wife to see it after all the positive word of mouth online and it opened late here.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 12, 2022)

I enjoyed it quite a bit, but felt let down by the overly fan service ending.


----------

