# Ghostbusters: Afterlife



## Morrus (Dec 7, 2019)

Trailer coming on Monday. Willit be good? Will it be bad? Who knows!









						First Look at Ghostbusters: Afterlife
					

New characters uncover elements from the 1984 original in director Jason Reitman's upcoming film.




					www.vanityfair.com
				




"_The Leftovers_’ Carrie Coon starring as mom Callie, _I, Tonya_’s Mckenna Grace as her science-obsessed daughter Phoebe, and _Stranger Things_’ Finn Wolfhard as gearhead son Trevor. They have left everything they know and moved to a small town in Oklahoma after inheriting property from the father she didn’t know."







"Manhattan Crossrip” is the technical term for that long-ago bizarre incident in New York involving an apocalypse-summoning skyscraper, a gargantuan killer marshmallow man, and four working stiffs who managed to fight back against an ancient Sumerian God named Gozer.

Most of the original cast have committed to returning as their classic characters, although it’s not clear in what capacity they'll appear. (Harold Ramis died in 2014, and Rick Moranis, who has limited his screen work in recent years, is not expected to reprise his role.)

We probably won't see much of the classic characters until the film itself reveals what became of them over the past three decades. Callie and her family are also wondering how those guys fit into their lives.

“As the family arrives at an old farm, they begin to discover their connection to the original Ghostbusters,” Reitman said. “Trevor and Phoebe are about to find out who their grandfather was and whether they’re ready to pick up the proton pack themselves.”

Reitman doesn’t want to confirm much else about the family’s history, but people may already notice some familiarity in their appearance.

In the collapsing barn of their farmhouse, they find an old car, bloomed with rust, hidden beneath a tarp—the retro-ambulance turned ghost-hunting mobile. In this shot, Trevor lays eyes on his new ride for the first time, originally hinted at a year ago in the movie’s teaser.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 7, 2019)

Let's hope it's good. I do think it will be WAY better than the 2016 reboot.  But I also think they missed the window of a great third film by 10-20 years.  I'll be happy if I'm wrong.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2019)

I am reserving judgement.  

The potential for devolving into, "Honey, I Busted the Kids," is pretty high.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 7, 2019)

I also like to look at what directors have done in the past as a kind of gauge of their ability.  I haven't seen most of what Jason Reitman has done.  Looks like mostly comedy, and GB is comedy so that's a plus.  What he hasn't done yet is big budget SFX tentpole films, but you got to start somewhere. 

Juno and Thank You For Smoking were...good movies.  Highly acclaimed, especially Juno I believe, but I wouldn't put either in my list of "watch again."  And he did some Office episodes!  That's another plus.   Some of the others might be fantastic, I just haven't seen them. 

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (post-production)
 2018 The Front Runner
 2018 Tully
 2015-2017 Casual (TV Series) (6 episodes)

The Hermit & the Moon (2017)
99 (2017)
Trivial Pursuit (2016)
Phase 3 (2016)
Pilot (2015)

 2016 Roast Battle (Documentary short)
 2014 Men, Women & Children (directed by)
 2013 Labor Day
 2011 Young Adult
 2009 Up in the Air
 2007-2008  The Office (TV Series) (2 episodes)

Frame Toby (2008)
Local Ad (2007)
 2008 Saturday Night Live (TV Series) (1 episode)
- Ashton Kutcher/Gnarls Barkley (2008) ... (film segments)
 2007 Juno
 2005 Thank You for Smoking
 2004 Consent (Short)
 2002 Uncle Sam (Documentary short)
 2001 Gulp (Short)
 2000 In God We Trust (Short)
 1999 H@ (Short)
 1998 Operation (Short)


By comparison, his dad Ivan Reitman has a long string of well remembered classics that go all the way back to the late 70s.  (given the accolades of his other stuff, I'm curious about Foxy Lady and Cannibal Girls!)

1971	Foxy Lady	
1973	Cannibal Girls
1979	Meatballs	
1981	Stripes	
1984	Ghostbusters	
1986	Legal Eagles		
1988	Twins	
1989	Ghostbusters II	
1990	Kindergarten Cop		
1993	Dave		
1994	Junior		
1997	Fathers' Day	
1998	Six Days, Seven Nights	
2001	Evolution		
2006	My Super Ex-Girlfriend	
2011	No Strings Attached		
2014	Draft Day	
TBA	Triplets	
Summer of Love	
Untitled animated Ghostbusters film


----------



## Morrus (Dec 7, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> By comparison, his dad Ivan Reitman has a long string of well remembered classics that go all the way back to the late 70s.  (given the accolades of his other stuff, I'm curious about Foxy Lady and Cannibal Girls!)
> 
> 1971    Foxy Lady
> 1973    Cannibal Girls
> ...



Not when he did Ghostbusters, he didn’t.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 7, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Not when he did Ghostbusters, he didn’t.




Actually they did really, really well.

Stripes eventually grossed $85,297,000 in North America, making it the fifth most popular 1981 film at the U.S.A. and Canada box office

As for Meatballs, its $43 million in box office would be $150 million today, surpassed only by 1982's Porky's ($300 million today) and 2002's My Big Fat Greek Wedding ($336 million).

I think mainly though it got Raimis and Murray to join up again.  And it showed producers that he could take a cheap movie and turn it into huge profits.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 9, 2019)

Here's the trailer!


----------



## Morrus (Dec 9, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> Actually they did really, really well.




I didn't say they didn't do well. I was replying to "has a long string". Of that long string of awesome classic movies posted, only four were before _Ghostbusters._


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 9, 2019)

yeah, short string.  I never even heard of the first two.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 9, 2019)

Trailer


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 9, 2019)

Hrm.  Too many kids.  Looks like the Stranger Things version of Ghostbusters.  Might be good, but it didn't tickle me quite the way I'd hoped.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 9, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> Trailer



Is there an echo in here?


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 9, 2019)

well I've seen stranger things than a great Ghostbusters trailer turned into a family action drama


----------



## ccs (Dec 9, 2019)

Maybe I'll see this one.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 9, 2019)

This is the sort of thing they should have done a while ago! The sort of thing hinted by Real Ghostbusters: the WORLD is interesting, the setup of ordinary people against supernatural forces using science to overcome is also interesting. 

They didn't need to wait for Bill Murray all these years, they didn't need to reboot it just because they think 'funny people in New York with Ghosts' was all the movie had going for it. 

The 2016 movie? Should have been about a franchise in another city (my votes goes to New-Orleans, but Chicago could have worked too). 

Let's hope this puts the franchise on a more interesting track that got halted when the Real Ghostbusters producers decided to listen to blowhard consultants who said Janine was too 'harsh' for kids >.>


----------



## Morrus (Dec 9, 2019)

Undrave said:


> The 2016 movie? Should have been about a franchise in another city (my votes goes to New-Orleans, but Chicago could have worked too).



Too similar. London, baby!


----------



## Undrave (Dec 9, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Too similar. London, baby!




Too fancy  

You should listen to the Sequeliser podcast where they talk Ghostbusters and basically imagine a sequel by Edgar Wright in his usual setting of the English country side. 

Point is, Ghostbusters stories set in different cities should have been the basic hook for sequels! They could easily have created a sort of 'universe', one that might be described as being 'of the cinema'. You know?


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 9, 2019)

Undrave said:


> Too fancy
> 
> You should listen to the Sequeliser podcast where they talk Ghostbusters and basically imagine a sequel by Edgar Wright in his usual setting of the English country side.
> 
> Point is, Ghostbusters stories set in different cities should have been the basic hook for sequels! They could easily have created a sort of 'universe', one that might be described as being 'of the cinema'. You know?




Oooh...Wright directing with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost....


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 9, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Here's the trailer!



video unavailable 


Nebulous said:


> Trailer



Thank you


----------



## Undrave (Dec 9, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> Oooh...Wright directing with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost....




Slackers just lounging around a Ghostbusters office in a nowhere town in England where nothing ever happens. Most of the calls being just sweeping places with a PKE meters and not finding squat.

Perfect for Wright and his cadre


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 9, 2019)

Undrave said:


> Too fancy
> 
> You should listen to the Sequeliser podcast where they talk Ghostbusters and basically imagine a sequel by Edgar Wright in his usual setting of the English country side.
> 
> Point is, Ghostbusters stories set in different cities should have been the basic hook for sequels! They could easily have created a sort of 'universe', one that might be described as being 'of the cinema'. You know?




A Universe of Ghostbusters would be Cinematic!


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 9, 2019)

Undrave said:


> Too fancy
> 
> You should listen to the Sequeliser podcast where they talk Ghostbusters and basically imagine a sequel by Edgar Wright in his usual setting of the English country side.
> 
> Point is, Ghostbusters stories set in different cities should have been the basic hook for sequels! They could easily have created a sort of 'universe', one that might be described as being 'of the cinema'. You know?



Dan Aykroyd's original script called for multiple groups of ghostbusters who traveled through time and fought ghosts in different dimensions wearing SWAT-like gear and using wands to battle ghosts. This idea was rejected as technically unfeasible in 1984. Supposedly, the special effects would have cost over $300 million. Ivan Reitman re-purposed the script as a "going into business" story to make it more accessible to audiences.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 9, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> Dan Aykroyd's original script called for multiple groups of ghostbusters who traveled through time and fought ghosts in different dimensions wearing SWAT-like gear and using wands to battle ghosts. This idea was rejected as technically unfeasible in 1984. Supposedly, the special effects would have cost over $300 million. Ivan Reitman re-purposed the script as a "going into business" story to make it more accessible to audiences.




They managed to do most that in the comics! Neat! The Ghostbusters get a dimensional portals from the TMNTs!


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 9, 2019)

Undrave said:


> Slackers just lounging around a Ghostbusters office in a nowhere town in England where nothing ever happens. Most of the calls being just sweeping places with a PKE meters and not finding squat.
> 
> Perfect for Wright and his cadre


----------



## Eltab (Dec 10, 2019)

The Moscow franchise gets a call to go on a field trip: something _scary_ is emanating from a certain bloody cellar in Ekaterinburg.  The first layer of the mystery is to find the historical reference.  Then the comedy and sci-fi hijinks can begin.


----------



## gyor (Dec 10, 2019)

I'm looking forward to this movie, although cheerleaders for the 2016 movie are trashing this movie as hard as they can trying to ruin it for fans.


----------



## cbwjm (Dec 10, 2019)

gyor said:


> I'm looking forward to this movie, although cheerleaders for the 2016 movie are trashing this movie as hard as they can trying to ruin it for fans.



That's fair. Trolls trashed the 2016 movie as hard as they could, this just sounds like some kind of karmic backlash.


----------



## gyor (Dec 10, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> That's fair. Trolls trashed the 2016 movie as hard as they could, this just sounds like some kind of karmic backlash.




 The people who trashed the 2016 movie weren't Trolls,  the 2016 movie was a snooze. It was bad. 

 And those who are trashing this version are the same type of critics who trashed the Joker movie as a movie for Incels and I suspect it will have the same effect as it did for Joker. I predict this Ghostbuster movie will make over a billion dollars as well.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2019)

gyor said:


> The people who trashed the 2016 movie weren't Trolls,  the 2016 movie was a snooze. It was bad.



They were trashing it long before it was released.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2019)

gyor said:


> The people who trashed the 2016 movie weren't Trolls,  the 2016 movie was a snooze. It was bad.




_shrug_.  I liked it.  My wife liked it.  My friend and his teenage daughter liked it.  Did a quick poll at work, and every respondent who had seen it liked it.  So, while you may not have liked it, that's not universal.

The fact that the trashing started long before the movie was released makes it pretty clear that they weren't trashing it because of the film's actual quality, 'cause _they hadn't seen it_. 

That's a bit that's kind of hard to get around, you know.


----------



## GreyLord (Dec 10, 2019)

gyor said:


> The people who trashed the 2016 movie weren't Trolls,  the 2016 movie was a snooze. It was bad.
> 
> And those who are trashing this version are the same type of critics who trashed the Joker movie as a movie for Incels and I suspect it will have the same effect as it did for Joker. I predict this Ghostbuster movie will make over a billion dollars as well.




I liked it.  My wife got a laugh about the role reversal of the secretary (thor guy).

The new one, I think may have the problem from the ad that the first and second were comedies and thus far, this new one seems more on the serious side rather than a comedy.

It could be good, it could be fun...we'll see.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2019)

I’m slightly apprehensive about it not being set in New York, which was a character in the other films. It’s one of a few cities in the world with that quality. I’m not sure some random small town can fill in for it.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 10, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Undrave (Dec 10, 2019)

GreyLord said:


> I liked it.  My wife got a laugh about the role reversal of the secretary (thor guy).
> 
> The new one, I think may have the problem from the ad that the first and second were comedies and thus far, this new one seems more on the serious side rather than a comedy.
> 
> It could be good, it could be fun...we'll see.




Ghostbusters was a comedy, but it was also scary to the kids watching it in the 80s. The Real Ghostbusters also accounts for a HUGE chunk of the origin Ghostbusters Fandom, far more than Ghostbusters II really, and that show had some really striking scary stuff amidst the 'Slimer bothers Peter' gags. 

I think this is actually a good track to go on, try to develop the world that fascinated people in the 80s and don't focus so much on the 'formula' of the first movie. Trying to copy the first one too closely lead to the repetitive Ghostbusters II and it's basically what Paul Feig was trying to do in 2016 because he was already an adult when he first saw Ghostbusters and he didn't 'get it' the same as people who were kids in the 80s. 

Sure, be funny, but try to be more than that.



Morrus said:


> I’m slightly apprehensive about it not being set in New York, which was a character in the other films. It’s one of a few cities in the world with that quality. I’m not sure some random small town can fill in for it.




The World of the Ghostbusters is vast enough that you can set stories in all sorts of cities and each city can be its own new character and add its own flavour.

What I'M most apprehensive is that they play up some sort of 'destiny' angle... like "Your grand father was a Ghostbuster, you must pick up the mantle! It is your destiny!" or some naughty word. A proton pack isn't Excalibur! The point is that any shlob can pick it up and start busting (with the correct training). Ghostbusters are basically pest control, not Chosen Ones.

Heck, if Ghosts hadn't disappeared somehow you know there would have been competition popping up all over the place.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Dec 10, 2019)

I agree. I'm not going to condemn the movie based on a teaser trailer, but it being set outside of NYC doesn't feel right to me. So much of New York's identity infuses the three prior movies.



Morrus said:


> I’m slightly apprehensive about it not being set in New York, which was a character in the other films. It’s one of a few cities in the world with that quality. I’m not sure some random small town can fill in for it.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2019)

Morrus said:


> I’m slightly apprehensive about it not being set in New York, which was a character in the other films. It’s one of a few cities in the world with that quality. I’m not sure some random small town can fill in for it.




Any place can be a character.  It just takes an understanding of the place and a good writer.  Some place-characters are easier to write than others, though.




Undrave said:


> The Real Ghostbusters also accounts for a HUGE chunk of the origin Ghostbusters Fandom, far more than Ghostbusters II really, and that show had some really striking scary stuff amidst the 'Slimer bothers Peter' gags.




Which speaks a bit to having _good writing_.  The Real Ghostbusters had JMS on a whole mess of episodes - the guy who went on to do Babylon 5, and effectively changed how genre shows were plotted forever afterwards...



> Sure, be funny, but try to be more than that.




The critique I'm seeing float around, which probably has some merit, is that the first was actually a science fiction movie that happened to be performed by some of the funniest people in the business at the time.  The second movie was written as a comedy, with some sci-fi elements.

I think the 2016 movie honestly tired to aim for the sci-fi by funny people idea, but a lot of folks got too wrapped up in the all-female cast to enjoy it.

This trailer makes me think they are leaning to a slightly different scifi - "Kids on bikes".  The question remains how funny they can get...



> The World of the Ghostbusters is vast enough that you can set stories in all sorts of cities and each city can be its own new character and add its own flavour.




I think even a small Oklahoma town can have its flavor... if the writers pay attention to it.



> A proton pack isn't Excalibur! The point is that any shlob can pick it up and start busting (with the correct training).




Correct training?  Um... the entire first movie is comedic in part because they had no frelling idea what they were doing!  Ghostbusters _bumble_ their way through, training or not.  



> Ghostbusters are basically pest control, not Chosen Ones.




Well, given the title, and the cameos... I'm guessing it is less "Chosen Ones" and more like, "We ghosts of the originals now have to find someone to clean up a mess, and if you can't haunt family, who can you haunt?"


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Any place can be a character.  It just takes an understanding of the place and a good writer.  Some place-characters are easier to write than others, though.



Sure, Captain Obvious. 

I’m still slightly apprehensive about it not being set in New York, nevertheless.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Sure, Captain Obvious.




Well, you said, "It’s one of a few cities in the world with that quality."

With which I disagree.  So, not sure how it is so obvious, when you stated otherwise, but whatever.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 10, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Well, given the title, and the cameos... I'm guessing it is less "Chosen Ones" and more like, "We ghosts of the originals now have to find someone to clean up a mess, and if you can't haunt family, who can you haunt?"




A sort of 'Sins of the Father' thing then? Maybe the town is hiding a containment unit.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 10, 2019)

gyor said:


> I'm looking forward to this movie, although cheerleaders for the 2016 movie are trashing this movie as hard as they can trying to ruin it for fans.




Sauce for the goose and all that. If anything, the 2016 movie's team/backers probably have a better case for complaint. Just think of the optics on this sequel - it comes on the heels of a contentious fight and you know that there are critics of the 2016 effort who see it as their white knight charging in to restore the masculine honor of the original Ghostbusting crew and their fans against the tides of encroaching feminine appropriation. Or some such naughty word.

I'm pretty sure that the principals involved don't see it that way considering the support they gave the 2016 project and cameo appearances (though Jason Reitman has made some boneheaded gaffes), but it does seem a bit of a snub. That said, 2016 being a reboot does kind of take it outside the continuity anyway, so it's not like it can't be understood why it isn't referenced.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 10, 2019)

Morrus said:


> I’m slightly apprehensive about it not being set in New York, which was a character in the other films. It’s one of a few cities in the world with that quality. I’m not sure some random small town can fill in for it.




No. No it can't.  It's definitely trying to evoke the Stranger Things small town/kids vibe which is so popular right now. IT too with the small town Derry and kids.  It COULD work, but I would also prefer the New York setting.  I'm optimistic for this though, I hope it's enough of a hit to relaunch the franchise.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 10, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> It COULD work, but I would also prefer the New York setting.




See thats something I dont understand, I know that New York is a great character so a good place to tell stories, but I've already seen that story in the first movie trilogy, I dont need to see it recreated.

I like that this sequel is telling a new story with different characters- including the small town.
I hope it doesnt lean to heavily into the Stranger Things vibe, but am excited about expanding the Ghostbusting universe


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 10, 2019)

Undrave said:


> Ghostbusters was a comedy, but it was also scary to the kids watching it in the 80s. The Real Ghostbusters also accounts for a HUGE chunk of the origin Ghostbusters Fandom, far more than Ghostbusters II really, and that show had some really striking scary stuff amidst the 'Slimer bothers Peter' gags.



I didn't really think about until you mentioned it, but the GB cartoon is - to me- way more satisfying than the official GB 2 movie. I haven't seen it in ages, but I do remember some of the visuals were terrifying.  I should look it up on Youtube.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 10, 2019)

Tonguez said:


> See thats something I dont understand, I know that New York is a great character so a good place to tell stories, but I've already seen that story in the first movie trilogy, I dont need to see it recreated.
> I like that this sequel is telling a new story with different characters- including the small town.
> I hope it doesnt lean to heavily into the Stranger Things vibe, but am excited about expanding the Ghostbusting universe



I consider the video game Ghostbusters as movie #3 as it had the same actors and Dan Aykroyd wrote it.    

It's too early to tell if it will overly lean into Stranger Things.  i hope not. It will come down to the writing and the acting.  But Paul Rudd will be awesome no matter what.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2019)

Tonguez said:


> See thats something I dont understand, I know that New York is a great character so a good place to tell stories, but I've already seen that story in the first movie trilogy, I dont need to see it recreated.



It’s a character. Why would you not one one of the characters back? Do you not want to see Venkman etc. either?


----------



## Undrave (Dec 10, 2019)

Morrus said:


> It’s a character. Why would you not one one of the characters back? Do you not want to see Venkman etc. either?




Venkman was kind of an a-hole so...not really?


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Dec 10, 2019)

Yeah, it's definitely a bad look, intentional or not. The idea that people forget about and/or sweep this ghost stuff under the carpet would make it easier, if anything. It wouldn't be that hard to have someone Skype with Holtzmann briefly to confer on a bit of tech, or make reference to the Rowan North cover-up.

FYI, the Ghostbusters Remastered PS4 game is on sale in the PS Store for the next two weeks or so for about $18. As stated, it feels a whole lot like a third Ghostbusters film, and is a ton of fun. Until Answer the Call came out (of which I am an unabashed fan), I thought that was going to be it for the franchise.



billd91 said:


> Just think of the optics on this sequel - it comes on the heels of a contentious fight and you know that there are critics of the 2016 effort who see it as their white knight charging in to restore the masculine honor of the original Ghostbusting crew and their fans against the tides of encroaching feminine appropriation. Or some such naughty word.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 10, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> I didn't really think about until you mentioned it, but the GB cartoon is - to me- way more satisfying than the official GB 2 movie. I haven't seen it in ages, but I do remember some of the visuals were terrifying.  I should look it up on Youtube.




Look up the Boogeyman episode! It's a classic! 



Ralif Redhammer said:


> Yeah, it's definitely a bad look, intentional or not. The idea that people forget about and/or sweep this ghost stuff under the carpet would make it easier, if anything. It wouldn't be that hard to have someone Skype with Holtzmann briefly to confer on a bit of tech, or make reference to the Rowan North cover-up.
> 
> FYI, the Ghostbusters Remastered PS4 game is on sale in the PS Store for the next two weeks or so for about $18. As stated, it feels a whole lot like a third Ghostbusters film, and is a ton of fun. Until Answer the Call came out (of which I am an unabashed fan), I thought that was going to be it for the franchise.




The 2016 movie is in a different universe so they're not gonna show up. If they hadn't made it a reboot in the first place we wouldn't be in this position...

I highly HIGHLY recommend the IDW Ghostbusters comic books. They pick up after the video game ('The Rookie' heads the Chicago Branch) and are filled with cool stories, great characterization and cool nods to other incarnations (an incarnation of Kylie from X-Treme Ghostbusters shows up, for exemple) and they eventually cross over with the Answer the Call universe!


----------



## gyor (Dec 10, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Sauce for the goose and all that. If anything, the 2016 movie's team/backers probably have a better case for complaint. Just think of the optics on this sequel - it comes on the heels of a contentious fight and you know that there are critics of the 2016 effort who see it as their white knight charging in to restore the masculine honor of the original Ghostbusting crew and their fans against the tides of encroaching feminine appropriation. Or some such naughty word.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the principals involved don't see it that way considering the support they gave the 2016 project and cameo appearances (though Jason Reitman has made some boneheaded gaffes), but it does seem a bit of a snub. That said, 2016 being a reboot does kind of take it outside the continuity anyway, so it's not like it can't be understood why it isn't referenced.




 No actually they don't, they made the movie hyper political from the beginning and ran the worst PR campaign I've ever seen a movie run. They insulted the fan base,  disrespected the IP and then were surprised when the fans turned on them in droves. And movie was a huge flop as a result. They used women as a human shield against reasonable criticism,  which was unfair to women. They cherry picked unrepresentive examples from their worst critics, to smear the far more reasonable majority of critics. 

 And they want this new Ghostbusters to fail not just for petty revenge against the Ghostbusters fans who refused to support their movie in 2016, but because if this one succeeds where the 2016 movie failed,  given this one has female ghostbusters as as well,  but with a different approach to the IP that is less political,  it will expose their accusations of mysgony against the Ghostbusters fandom as the lies they always were and that is what supporters of the 2016 movie fear above all else.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 10, 2019)

gyor said:


> No actually they don't, they made the movie hyper political from the beginning and ran the worst PR campaign I've ever seen a movie run. They insulted the fan base,  disrespected the IP and then were surprised when the fans turned on them in droves. And movie was a huge flop as a result. They used women as a human shield against reasonable criticism,  which was unfair to women. They cherry picked unrepresentive examples from their worst critics, to smear the far more reasonable majority of critics.
> 
> And they want this new Ghostbusters to fail not just for petty revenge against the Ghostbusters fans who refused to support their movie in 2016, but because if this one succeeds where the 2016 movie failed,  given this one has female ghostbusters as as well,  but with a different approach to the IP that is less political,  it will expose their accusations of mysgony against the Ghostbusters fandom as the lies they always were and that is what supporters of the 2016 movie fear above all else.




I just want a good movie


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2019)

gyor said:


> No actually they don't, they made the movie hyper political from the beginning and ran the worst PR campaign I've ever seen a movie run. They insulted the fan base,  disrespected the IP and then were surprised when the fans turned on them in droves. And movie was a huge flop as a result. They used women as a human shield against reasonable criticism,  which was unfair to women. They cherry picked unrepresentive examples from their worst critics, to smear the far more reasonable majority of critics.
> 
> And they want this new Ghostbusters to fail not just for petty revenge against the Ghostbusters fans who refused to support their movie in 2016, but because if this one succeeds where the 2016 movie failed,  given this one has female ghostbusters as as well,  but with a different approach to the IP that is less political,  it will expose their accusations of mysgony against the Ghostbusters fandom as the lies they always were and that is what supporters of the 2016 movie fear above all else.



Let’s not do this here again, please.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Dec 10, 2019)

I'll agree that making Answer the Call a reboot was probably...unstrategic. But if this one is going with "oh, everybody forgot about the ghosts and Ghostbusters" plot device, there's nothing to stop the current film from roping them back into continuity.

I've heard lots of good things about IDW's Ghostbusters comics. In general, IDW has done very well with their licensed properties. 



Undrave said:


> The 2016 movie is in a different universe so they're not gonna show up. If they hadn't made it a reboot in the first place we wouldn't be in this position...
> 
> I highly HIGHLY recommend the IDW Ghostbusters comic books. They pick up after the video game ('The Rookie' heads the Chicago Branch) and are filled with cool stories, great characterization and cool nods to other incarnations (an incarnation of Kylie from X-Treme Ghostbusters shows up, for exemple) and they eventually cross over with the Answer the Call universe!


----------



## billd91 (Dec 10, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I'll agree that making Answer the Call a reboot was probably...unstrategic. But if this one is going with "oh, everybody forgot about the ghosts and Ghostbusters" plot device, there's nothing to stop the current film from roping them back into continuity.




I think at the point they made Ghostbusters: Answer the Call, an actual sequel had fallen off the table with Harold Ramis's death and Bill Murray's constant lack of interest. At that point, reboot (with cameos to incorporate the original cast rather than having them reprise their roles) seemed a reasonable thing to do.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 10, 2019)

Yeah, Answer the Call was pretty good. Theatrical release had some weird plotting issues due to cut scenes, but otherwise it was a solid comedy. Kate McKinnon basically stole the show. I was kinda bummed when it only did modestly good at the box office and that meant we weren't gonna get more but at the same time, the first Ghostbusters got a sequel too, and we all know how that went.

Afterlife also looks pretty great, just... I was kind of expecting my comedy sequel/reboot/thing to be a... you know... a comedy? Still too early to say, and Paul Rudd being there helps quite a bit, but this definitely wasn't what I was expecting, tonally, from this trailer.

That said, I care a lot more about quality than genre, so as long as it's good I'm happy.


----------



## ParanoydStyle (Dec 10, 2019)

I had no idea this was a thing. That will happen when you've pulled the plug and are living with just a few streaming services, not cable.

Ghostbusters was, during my childhood, my absolute very favorite thing. The first thing I wrote, I wrote circa age 4: Ghostbusters fanfiction, dictated to my mom who actually wrote down the words, and "illustrated" (hideously) by my four year old self and that was when I started proceeding down the path of the writer as my calling.

Everything Ghostbusters related was by far my most precious childhood memory, and my inner child, bustin' made him feel good. Ghostbusters was sacred to me, my inner child's safe, happy place.

Then Ghostbusters (2016) happened which was, pardon my graphic language, like this:

very over the top metaphor follows



Spoiler



my inner child was DIS-A-POIN-TED! (Language contra ENWorld’s ToS removed.



The Ghostbusters that obliges us to call the real Ghostbusters film Ghostbusters (1984) by its very existence was badly written badly acted unfunny uninspired insulting preposterous callow cash grab that, if you had a problem with it, it had to be because you HATE THE WAHMENS, it couldn't be any of the dozens of things obviously horribly wrong with it. I'm not going to lie: I am still angry enough about Ghostbusters (2016) that I can't quite bring myself to even click on the trailer for this. It is too soon. It's too soon.

What I gleaned about Afterlife (the people involved, the premise, the milieu, etc.) from skimming the first page of this thread seems somewhat promising. The other vague impression I get from the same brief skim is that it seems to be leaning noticeably more towards the spooky/scary side of Ghostbusters and away from the comedy aspects which is an...interesting choice.


----------



## cbwjm (Dec 10, 2019)

gyor said:


> The people who trashed the 2016 movie weren't Trolls, the 2016 movie was a snooze. It was bad.
> 
> And those who are trashing this version are the same type of critics who trashed the Joker movie as a movie for Incels and I suspect it will have the same effect as it did for Joker. I predict this Ghostbuster movie will make over a billion dollars as well.



Considering they started trashing the movie before it was even out in theatres, even before a trailer was released, makes me think that they can't be called anything but trolls.


----------



## cbwjm (Dec 10, 2019)

Morrus said:


> It’s a character. Why would you not one one of the characters back? Do you not want to see Venkman etc. either?



That's more or less why I didn't ruah out and watch the 2016 movie. Having watched the Ghostbusters movies as a kid, I wanted a sequel with the original characters, not new characters. I will watch it eventually, it's on my watch list, but I'm still not in a hurry.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 10, 2019)

The sweep the movies and cartoon events under the rug was used in the Ghostbusters extreme cartoon.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2019)

ParanoydStyle said:


> I had no idea this was a thing. That will happen when you've pulled the plug and are living with just a few streaming services, not cable.



I didn't learn about this from a cable service (I've never even had one). I learned about it, like everybody else did, from the same internet you're using right now.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2019)

ParanoydStyle said:


> very over the top metaphor follows
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And THAT is entirely inappropriate. What were you thinking? Don't post in this thread again.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 11, 2019)

billd91 said:


> I think at the point they made Ghostbusters: Answer the Call, an actual sequel had fallen off the table with Harold Ramis's death and Bill Murray's constant lack of interest. At that point, reboot (with cameos to incorporate the original cast rather than having them reprise their roles) seemed a reasonable thing to do.




More like an Hollywood thing to do. I’m still of the opinion they shouldn’t have waited for Bill Murray to make a Ghostbusters 3. This idea that people become fan of a franchise as nothing but a pile of names is why we got NuTrek instead of just continuing that universe, it’s why The Force Awakens was just Rebel VS Empire with the numbers filed off, or that Hasbro keeps putting out a crap ton of Bumblebees… or how we got Ghostbusters II in the first place.

If you look at what the Ghostbusters hard core fans have been doing, that is to say create their own Ghostbusters chapters all over the country and even world, you’d realize there was more to the franchise’s appeal than Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Harold Raimis and Ernie Hudson (though Hudson got shafted in term of exposure and could have used more focus) and that obsessing over THESE FOUR GUYS meant we lost Harold Raimis before he could be Egon again and cost the franchise a lot of potential development. Imagine if they had just given an excuse for Venkman to not be there, use the third movie as a way to introduce more characters and kept going with a mix of old and new… and then at some point Murray might have come back on his own and then it would have been a big event. The Franchise could have been a big moneymaker if they had decided to develop it as a coherent universe.

Answer the Call didn’t need to reboot the franchise to star four women, nor to attract fans old and new.

This new movie looks primed to hook a new generation of young fans and I think if older fans bring their kids along, it’ll probably be spawning sequels for a while.

Now, just don’t obsessed over JUST those four characters…I think franchises who are willing to experiment a bit with their basic setup do better in the long run.

TL;DR: A franchise's appeal resides in more than just a pile of names.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 11, 2019)

Undrave said:


> Now, just don’t obsessed over JUST those four characters…I think franchises who are willing to experiment a bit with their basic setup do better in the long run.
> 
> TL;DR: A franchise's appeal resides in more than just a pile of names.




*That*, in part, depends on who's driving the franchise. In this case, it was largely in the hands of Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ivan Reitman the whole time. They had veto power over anything the studio wanted to do with Ghostbusters. So while the franchise may have appeal in more than just a pile of names, those names weren't just the stars, they were they creators and it was still theirs to develop until such time as they chose to relinquish it. And if they wanted to get the band back together for it, that was their right.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 11, 2019)

billd91 said:


> *That*, in part, depends on who's driving the franchise. In this case, it was largely in the hands of Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ivan Reitman the whole time. They had veto power over anything the studio wanted to do with Ghostbusters. So while the franchise may have appeal in more than just a pile of names, those names weren't just the stars, they were they creators and it was still theirs to develop until such time as they chose to relinquish it. And if they wanted to get the band back together for it, that was their right.




Fair enough, but I think they were blinded by that obsession just as any studio exec, even if not for the same reasons. 

Maybe with the band now, sadly, broken forever, the franchise can move on in a more productive way...


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 11, 2019)

Undrave said:


> Maybe with the band now, sadly, broken forever, the franchise can move on in a more productive way...




It will move on, yes. I doubt it will ever reach the phenomenal success of the first Ghostbusters, and even the team itself couldn't recreate that magic for the sequel.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> It will move on, yes. I doubt it will ever reach the phenomenal success of the first Ghostbusters, and even the team itself couldn't recreate that magic for the sequel.




Phenomenal success?  Box Office Mojo reports the original movie having a budget of $144 million, and box office gross of about $230 million.  That's not a failure, but phenomenal?

A phenomenal success is more like Spider Man: Far From Home with a budget of $160 million, pulling in $1 billion.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 11, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Phenomenal success?  Box Office Mojo reports the original movie having a budget of $144 million, and box office gross of about $230 million.  That's not a failure, but phenomenal?
> 
> A phenomenal success is more like Spider Man: Far From Home with a budget of $160 million, pulling in $1 billion.




The Real Ghostbusters and its adjacent toy line don't get enough props for keeping the brand alive enough to justify a sequel five years later.

Do note that the first movie was the second highest grossing movie of 1984, behind Beverly Hills Cop.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2019)

Undrave said:


> Do note that the first movie was the second highest grossing movie of 1984, behind Beverly Hills Cop.




Yes, but this is why I note both budget and gross, rather than just gross - you can then get a measure of return on investment in a way that's pretty inflation-proof.  Ghostbusters returned something like 1.6 x its budget.  Spider man returned like 6.8 x its budget.  

Ghostbusters was a success.  But not a phenomenal one.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 11, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but this is why I note both budget and gross, rather than just gross - you can then get a measure of return on investment in a way that's pretty inflation-proof.  Ghostbusters returned something like 1.6 x its budget.  Spider man returned like 6.8 x its budget.
> 
> Ghostbusters was a success.  But not a phenomenal one.




But have movie ticket prices matched regular inflation of have they gotten more expensive? And the advent of premium theatres have also changed the worth of the metric. And you have to consider it in context. I don't think that having the second highest grossing movie of a year would be considered anything but a great success. Especially considering it was a pretty high concept movie with no real character arcs...


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 11, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Phenomenal success?  Box Office Mojo reports the original movie having a budget of $144 million, and box office gross of about $230 million.  That's not a failure, but phenomenal?
> 
> A phenomenal success is more like Spider Man: Far From Home with a budget of $160 million, pulling in $1 billion.




Yes.  You can't compare a billion dollar movie franchise to a single 1984 comedy. 

Over the June 8-10 weekend in 1984, director Ivan Reitman's _Ghostbusters_ opened to $13.6 million — or $35 million when adjusted for inflation, a strong showing before the era of the mega-summer openings and when movies opened in far fewer theaters but played for much longer.

_Ghostbusters_ quickly transformed into a hit, surpassing Steven Spielberg's_ Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom_ to become the highest-grossing film of summer 1984 and the No. 2 film of the year behind_ Beverly Hills Cop_ with $229.2 million. (_Beverly Hills Cop_, released in mid-December, earned $234.8 million.)

When adjusting for inflation, _Ghostbusters_ earned $589.7 million at the North American box office, including grosses from when the classic VFX comedy was later rereleased. Put another way, it is considered the most successful comedy of the 1980s.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2019)

Undrave said:


> But have movie ticket prices matched regular inflation of have they gotten more expensive?




I don't think ticket prices have outpaced inflation by that much.

Looking around, I found: The average movie ticket price in 1984 was $3.36.  Adjusted for inflation, that should be about $8.30 in 2019.  The averages suggest ticket sales of about 88 million units.

Average ticket price in 2019?  $9.26.     Only a buck more than an adjusted 1984 ticket.  The average suggests Spider Man sold 122 million tickets. 

So, based on these averages, I am sorry, but Spider Man sold lots more tickets overall than Ghostbusters did.

Be that as it may, I don't think it matters much.  You are a movie studio.  Which do you want more - a movie that returns 1.6 times what you put into it, or a movie that returns 6.8 times what you put into it?  Which is more successful?



> And the advent of premium theatres have also changed the worth of the metric.




See above - on average, ticket prices are only a buck higher today, adjusted for inflation.  



> And you have to consider it in context. I don't think that having the second highest grossing movie of a year would be considered anything but a great success.




Um, saying "second best in a year is always a great success" is specifically _not_ taking the context into account.  If I am rating tallest people... in a 3rd grade class... then coming in second doesn't really mean you;re all that tall.

So, again, Ghostbusters did okay.  Not arguing that it was a flop or anything.  Just saying that it wasn't earth-shattering in its sales or profitability back in the day.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 11, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Phenomenal success?  Box Office Mojo reports the original movie having a budget of $144 million, and box office gross of about $230 million.  That's not a failure, but phenomenal?
> 
> A phenomenal success is more like Spider Man: Far From Home with a budget of $160 million, pulling in $1 billion.




I just checked and Wikipedia cites a budget of 25 to 30 million and a box office gross of 295,7 million, putting it at almost a 1:10 return on investment... not sure where you got the 144 million from? Maybe it's adjusted for inflation but not the 230 million? Ten fold investment seems common in that era for top grossing movies.

EDIT: Marketing was an extra 10 million $


----------



## Undrave (Dec 12, 2019)

I just realized... the kid is probably not gonna have the same family name as the famous grandparent... 

So what would you guys want to bet that they'll string us along the whole movie about WHO the grandparent is... 

What if it's Lewis Tully? That would be an hilarious twist!


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 12, 2019)

Undrave said:


> I just realized... the kid is probably not gonna have the same family name as the famous grandparent...
> 
> So what would you guys want to bet that they'll string us along the whole movie about WHO the grandparent is...
> 
> What if it's Lewis Tully? That would be an hilarious twist!



Unless, my eyes tricked me there's a quick shot of the jumpsuit and you can just barely see the name Spengler on it and the trailer also shows an extensive collection of spores, molds and fungus.

As for possible plot There's a shot of a sign that says Shandor Mining Co, that "pure selenium" or the other materials used used to build that cheap apartment on Central Park west had to have come from somewhere...


----------



## Morrus (Dec 12, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> Unless, my eyes tricked me there's a quick shot of the jumpsuit and you can just barely see the name Spengler on it and the trailer also shows an extensive collection of spores, molds and fungus.




Yep, if you pause it, it clearly says Spengler.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 12, 2019)

Undrave said:


> I just checked and Wikipedia cites a budget of 25 to 30 million and a box office gross of 295,7 million, putting it at almost a 1:10 return on investment... not sure where you got the 144 million from? Maybe it's adjusted for inflation but not the 230 million? Ten fold investment seems common in that era for top grossing movies.
> 
> EDIT: Marketing was an extra 10 million $




 This number seems more reliable, you didn't really see $100+ million dollar movies until 1991. 

 Modern box office includes deluxe movie theatres. Movies generally have to make just under double their budget (Inc marketing) to break even. 

 Big problem is movie costs plus marketing are spirialing. Old blockbusters even adjusted for inflation were usually cheap.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 12, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Yep, if you pause it, it clearly says Spengler.



Also the stack of books is a giveaway.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 12, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Yep, if you pause it, it clearly says Spengler.




Well... Finn Wolfhard does look like he could be related to Harold Ramis and Annie Potts....


----------



## Undrave (Dec 12, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> Unless, my eyes tricked me there's a quick shot of the jumpsuit and you can just barely see the name Spengler on it and the trailer also shows an extensive collection of spores, molds and fungus.




Yeah it's there but it could have been misdirection. 

But thinking on it, it's way more respectful to have Egon's death be part of the plot instead of something mentioned off-hand so my idea is probably not the best.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 12, 2019)

I recently watched The Ghostbusters episode of The Movies that Made Us The Movies That Made Us | Netflix Official Site I highly recommend it.


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 12, 2019)

I watched that as well. Definitely worth a watch.

As for the trailer, it looks alright. I like that they are delving back into the Ivo Shandor mythology, which they also did in the video game. I hope they keep the lore of the video game canon (as in Shandor also being linked to the events of GB2 via the Mandala Nodes).

I think it is smart of them to not lean too much on the nostalgia by leaving out the theme song. They seem to understand that in light of the disaster of the previous reboot, they now need to convince us that this can stand on its own as just a good movie. Not too many jokes in the trailer either, which is wise. There is a way to do nostalgia right, and a way to do it wrong. They are definitely doing it right here.

I hope they pretend the reboot didn't happen. I would be okay with that being erased from canon completely.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 13, 2019)

Undrave said:


> I just checked and Wikipedia cites a budget of 25 to 30 million and a box office gross of 295,7 million, putting it at almost a 1:10 return on investment... not sure where you got the 144 million from? Maybe it's adjusted for inflation but not the 230 million? Ten fold investment seems common in that era for top grossing movies.




Yep.  I think I got the wrong number flipping between tabs - I was comparing to various movies, and probably grabbed the budget from the wrong one.  My apologies.

The unit ticket sales I worked out hold, however.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 13, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Yep.  I think I got the wrong number flipping between tabs - I was comparing to various movies, and probably grabbed the budget from the wrong one.  My apologies.
> 
> The unit ticket sales I worked out hold, however.




Also, I don't think its fair to hold Ghostbusters to the standard of movies that came after it. Executives at the time wouldn't be aware of those figures. I think checking out '83 and '82 movies would be a better idea. 

It's mentioned that before Ghostbusters, the highest grossing comedy movie was 1982's Tootsie. Tootsie had a budget of 21 million and a gross of 177,2 million and was number 2 of its year. That ends up being roughly a  8 times return on investment, slightly less than Ghostbusters. No 1 of '82 was E.T. and THAT was a hugh hit with other 35 times its return on investment so that might be the kind of things Execs would look at.

Return of the Jedi, the previous year, was no 1 movie and had a return, domestically anyway, of only 6 times its budget. Though it was a third sequel in an established franchise. No 2 of that year was Terms of Endearment which also had a return in the 10 fold range. 

So I can see them considering Ghostbusters a hit, but I also see them think it was not enough of one to consider a sequel until five years later after the brand established itself in other markets. Hollywood was different at the time.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 13, 2019)

Fun little trailer. Maybe the Stranger Things vibe is what is needed. There's a fine line between fan service and copying to much of the previous movie. 

 If the movie works though the actors are young enough for sequels for a long time. 
 Some 80s movies being brought back need to be low budget though to maximise that investment. If the nostalgias still there the budget won't matter.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 13, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Some 80s movies being brought back need to be low budget though to maximise that investment. If the nostalgias still there the budget won't matter.




Makes me think that Universal's Dark Universe biggest flaws was the massive budget style they went with, when they should have tried to compete in the same bracket and audience as the Saw and Conjuring franchises.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 14, 2019)

Looks like fun!


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Fun little trailer. Maybe the Stranger Things vibe is what is needed. There's a fine line between fan service and copying to much of the previous movie.




Well, people kept saying that they should just follow the example of Stranger Things, and that is exactly what they did. So perhaps Sony is listening for a change?

So far this looks competent and fun, which is exactly what it needs to be.


----------

