Ghostbusters Afterlife

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**gorgon**

LunarSol wrote:
gorgon wrote:
And didn't audiences overall say 'meh' to the fresh new take in 2016?

Well, a lot was said about 2016 before anything was shown about it so its almost impossible to have a meaningful discourse on. The same is true of that Ghostbusters reboot. With some time to have let the culture war die down, the ultimate issue is that it wasn't really all that fresh or new. As a reboot/remake it hit the same basic story beats of the original without really having its own purpose.

I think something that's been endlessly lost about the greatness of the original is the mundanity of it. Regulating paranormal extermination and extra dimensional tears into the fabric of reality to a struggling service business whose bored secretary nods through panic screams before sending the slobs to come wreck your place and then bill you for the trouble was so core to what makes the original movie so great in a way that nothing since has managed to replicate. Everything else has focused on the toyetic aspects, the specific gear and such that made the cartoon such a huge success for kids. As one of those kids I totally totally get the reverence for it, but I also get that that's not what made the first movie great and isn't the backbone of a great movie on its own. Without its own core premise, its just trying to sell iconography for something where expansive worldbuilding is kind of the antithesis to 3 friends and someone that answered their help wanted sign struggling to keep their little business afloat.

Like if you really want to do a modern Ghostbusters you need to modernize the premise. It's brand rife for a take on large corporations copying successful small businesses and driving them out of business with cheaper prices and initially superior service that degrades over time as budgets are cut to appease stockholders. There's a legit movie there, but neither modern film seems to be as interested in doing something with the brand as it is trying to make kids want to wear a proton pack as much as they want to wield a lightsaber.

The thing that I've said about GB for years is that there never should have been a sequel. It's a nearly perfect self-contained concept and film. The financial opportunity dictated otherwise. But I think the reasons that the sequels, reboots, etc. haven't worked that well is because the original film wasn't built for there to be more and never needed to be more.

**Tannhauser42**

If anything, the original was built to set the stage to tell other stories in other places. Like they even said in the movie "the franchise rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams". They could have told us stories about those other franchises in other cities/countries.

**LunarSol**

The problem with that of course is that it removes the original actors who carried the whole thing... and then their characters became the source of the arguably more popular cartoon and the franchise got kind of stuck.

**Turnip Jedi**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
If anything, the original was built to set the stage to tell other stories in other places. Like they even said in the movie "the franchise rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams". They could have told us stories about those other franchises in other cities/countries.

haha, the was the entire premise behind the pnp RPG

**gorgon**

LunarSol wrote:
The problem with that of course is that it removes the original actors who carried the whole thing... and then their characters became the source of the arguably more popular cartoon and the franchise got kind of stuck.

Yeah, it's fair to say it's a better idea creatively speaking...but just not how Hollywood works.

**Formosa**

ok..... this was good, I really enjoyed it, not much else to say here.

**LunarSol**

gorgon wrote:
LunarSol wrote:
The problem with that of course is that it removes the original actors who carried the whole thing... and then their characters became the source of the arguably more popular cartoon and the franchise got kind of stuck.

Yeah, it's fair to say it's a better idea creatively speaking...but just not how Hollywood works.

In their defense, a great idea is only as good as the talent of the people making it and finding talented people is often harder than great ideas.

**Voss**

LunarSol wrote:
gorgon wrote:
LunarSol wrote:
The problem with that of course is that it removes the original actors who carried the whole thing... and then their characters became the source of the arguably more popular cartoon and the franchise got kind of stuck.

Yeah, it's fair to say it's a better idea creatively speaking...but just not how Hollywood works.

In their defense, a great idea is only as good as the talent of the people making it and finding talented people is often harder than great ideas.

Can't say I'd agree with that. Giving actually talented people a chance, rather than sticking with the Hollywood machine-produced meat puppets... that IS hard.

**cuda1179**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
If anything, the original was built to set the stage to tell other stories in other places. Like they even said in the movie "the franchise rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams". They could have told us stories about those other franchises in other cities/countries.

I could have totally lived with Ghostbusters 2 being the 4 main guys being the CEO's of a now floundering Ghostbusters International business. Getting sued for liability, getting complaints from franchises, malfunctioning equipment because it was mass produced in a Hong Kong sweat shop. Have the guys dodge bad publicity and Mythbusters, then being forced back into the trenches getting their hands dirty again.

As for Afterlife, I will say that it has A LOT of very obscure references that even people with encyclopedic knowledge of the original movie might miss the first time around, which I thought was a nice touch. Will this win an Emmy? No, never. However it does touch a lot of good buttons, the production value is there, and it's a decent movie. I think it's biggest flaw is that it's not Ghostbusters 1, which is the same problem Ghostbusters 2 had.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

That’s me booked in to see it this afternoon. I shall offer up my opinion upon my return.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well. That was pretty enjoyable!

Faithful to the original, and does some new stuff without reinventing the wheel.

Not sure it’s worth seeing in the cinema twice, but it’s definitely a home media purchase for me.

Spoiler:

**cuda1179**

LOL, I just read a hilariously derpy review from the Daily Beast. I'm not bothering to link to it, and you can thank me later.

Let's just say there's a lot of buzz words including "2016 version", "dog whistle", "Trump", "Milo Yiannopoulos", and "troll fueled".

**Blackie**

Saw it yesterday, it was pretty good!!! Solid plot, great visuals, convincing acting. Even Paul Rudd was somehow fun

.

Definitely the movie I enjoyed the most since theatres re-opened a few month ago.

**Lance845**

Saw it yesterday also. It was great! Like legit a really good ghost busters sequel. it had a lot of really funny bits. For a brief moment in final act it goes a little fan wanky, but not in a way that ruins the movie or anything.

2 post credits scenes. Again, really great for realz.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Seems to be doing kinda ok at the box office, which is pleasing.

It is of course hard to say what’s a hit or a miss in these post COVID times (well, I say post, you know what I mean). But $60m worldwide against a $75m budget seems pretty healthy.

I’m really hopeful that as folks spread positive word of mouth it’ll turn a decent profit. Because I want more.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Red Letter Media described the film as the The Force Awakens of the Ghostbusters franchise. Would you consider that an accurate description?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Not sure if they intended to be complementary or not. It could simply be a lazy short hand.

I enjoyed The Force Awakens, and I adore Ghostbuster Afterlife.

It’s a solid family movie. Various call backs to the original, but ultimately remains it own thing. Not a remake. Not a soft reboot. It is a sequel, and an enjoyable one.

I really do recommend this as a “just go and see it” movie. I cannot and do not guarantee you’ll find the same affection I did, but I think you’d be hard pressed not to like it?

**Lance845**

If by the Force Awakens of ghostbusters they mean It's Ghost Busters 1 but with a new cast, no. Absolutely not. This is it's own movie. It doesn't hit the story beats of the first. That was Ghost Busters 2 where the entire movie was more or less a remake of 1 with less jokes.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I suspect their review is just lazy.

You have multiple Dakkanauts, all quite happy to speak their mind, endorsing this movie.

Your tastes may differ at the end, and as ever, entirely fair enough, but give it a try.

It’s good. At the end of the day I’d say it’s objectively good.

In fact all Dakkanauts should give this film a whirl!

**Lance845**

I would even go so far as to say multiple Dakkanauts who generally disagree are agreeing on this movie.

And I agree with Mad Doc. Objectively good is a fair assessment. Again, there is a bit at the end that gets a little fan wanky. But it doesn't ruin anything.

This movie just works.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Their review was anything but lazy.

Anyway, the positive reviews have convinced me to give it a chance. Hopefully I will enjoy the movie. Given the strong positive reviews and the strong negative reviews, I still have no idea whether I will like the movie or not. It feels like a total crapshoot.

**Ouze**

Very much the same, but I plan to see it.

**greenskin lynn**

I'd give the movie somewhere between a B and a B+, enjoyed it and would like to watch it again at some point, but there was some room for improvement

**Blackie**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Red Letter Media described the film as the The Force Awakens of the Ghostbusters franchise. Would you consider that an accurate description?

No, I'd say it's more The Phantom Menace of the Ghostbusters franchise.

When Ghostbusters gets its third incarnation then we could maybe talk about a The Force Awakens of the Ghostbusters franchise. The Force Awakens, other than poor writing and acting, definitely suffers from being the 7th episode of a saga that should have ended long ago, while Afterlife is much more "fresh".

**Graphite**

Interesting, I had been put off seeing this by the multiple "it doesn't have the things that made the original movie great" takes...

But if it stands on its own two feet as something different, I may see when it is available at my local picture pit...

**Lance845**

I think part of what made the original great was the group dynamics.

Egon was funny by being completely deadpan and having no sense of humor.

Ray was just so excited to be there.

Winston didn't care what was going on, he just wanted a pay check.

And Venkman was quippy and a creep.

So now we have these kids.

One is really exicted about stuff.

One is really smart and pretty dead pan. But family is getting them to tell jokes. Delivered dead pan. Often having the theater laughing out loud.

One is hitting on girls, but is a awkward kid and sucks at it.

And eventually a 4th is just a regular person who gets kinda pulled into it.

It's not EXACTLY the original dynamic but the original dynamics bones are in there and it creates something far better than all 4 of them being the quippy funny one.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

For those on the fence or doubtful who do go see, let us know what you make of it. Or made of it, I suppose.

**StraightSilver**

I'm going to see it tonight.

I think I am in the opposite camp, I haven't read any reviews yet but am excited to see it based on trailers alone. I think it looks like a really well done sequel that is faithful to the original movies in tone and special effects.

So it'll be interesting to see if my excitement is justified, but will post what I think of it tomorrow.

**beast_gts**

I saw it last night and really liked it. I agree that the ending was a bit fanservice, but in a good way.

**StraightSilver**

OK, so I actually really enjoyed this.

I totally get the Force Awakens comparison but I feel it's what Force Awakens should have been, if that makes sense?

But in terms of Ghostbusters Afterlife, I thought the casting was perfect - with the exception, actually, of Finn Wolfhard. Not saying he wasn't great in it, but he didn't remind me of Peter Venkman in the way that Podcast reminded me of Ray or Phoebe reminded me of Spengler.

The special effects were very thoughtfully done, you could watch the original movies and then this immediately after and it wouldn't be jarring.

It didn't make me laugh out loud, but it did make me smile and it was a lovely feeling of nostalgia, whilst still being something "new", although if you take the Force Awakens comparison, it is both a sequel and a reboot, but I think a more successful one.

My only complaint is, there aren't actually enough ghosts in it.

And the final post-credit scene is actually pretty major, but the entire cinema aside from myself and my friend had left by this point. It's worth sticking to the end for.

**Lance845**

StraightSilver wrote:
OK, so I actually really enjoyed this.

I totally get the Force Awakens comparison but I feel it's what Force Awakens should have been, if that makes sense?

But in terms of Ghostbusters Afterlife, I thought the casting was perfect - with the exception, actually, of Finn Wolfhard. Not saying he wasn't great in it, but he didn't remind me of Peter Venkman in the way that Podcast reminded me of Ray or Phoebe reminded me of Spengler.

The special effects were very thoughtfully done, you could watch the original movies and then this immediately after and it wouldn't be jarring.

It didn't make me laugh out loud, but it did make me smile and it was a lovely feeling of nostalgia, whilst still being something "new", although if you take the Force Awakens comparison, it is both a sequel and a reboot, but I think a more successful one.

My only complaint is, there aren't actually enough ghosts in it.

And the final post-credit scene is actually pretty major, but the entire cinema aside from myself and my friend had left by this point. It's worth sticking to the end for.

Spoiler: