Movies: Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2020)

[NyQuil]

Really not sure if Ghostbusters needs to be revisisted. Still, Jason Reitman has some good work under his belt and I think he has the right idea here. His seemingly PR driven statement actually has a nuanced nugget of truth, one in which his detractors may have overlooked.

Will be interesting to see how this one goes.

I think Ghostbusters is to Jason Reitman as Dune is to Denis Villeneuve.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The thing that’s being lost/forgotten in this renewed debate about the last Ghostbusters is that most of the vitriol was BEFORE the movie even came out. BEFORE anyone had seen it. That’s an important distinction to me. I remember the arguments in general (and here specifically) and there was widespread opposition to the mere existence of the film -- not the actual product itself (Oceans 8 too). That Ghostbusters ultimately was mediocre at best (Hemsworth and McKinnon were great. The rest? Meh) shouldn’t mask the garbage heaped on it before it even got out into the world.

I think this separates it from the issues with The Last Jedi as well. Someone feel free to correct me, but I don’t recall many pre-emptive strikes against The Last Jedi. The anger was reactive to the actual movie. That’s a different thing to me.

If someone sees a movie and dislikes it, fine. We may disagree, but at least it’s coming from an informed place.
But to kill something for its mere existence or concept without actually seeing/experiencing it? That I can’t abide. If you’re not willing to watch it, shut up and move on.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

On the topic of this actual movie, despite the family connection, Reitman is actually a weird choice based on everything he's done. Not a bad one necessarily, but certainly there's nothing in his actual filmography that would make me say, "this is the dude to resurrect Ghostbusters!"

Trying to think of a comparable director to remove the familial tie and the best one I'm coming up with is Alexander Payne. Maybe Jeff Nichols?

 

[Osprey]

God forbid you say anything bad about a movie with women in it.

Not to bring this up again, but the reason I disliked The Last Jedi has nothing to do with the women characters and everything to do with most of the rest of the movie.

It's strange to me is that we have TFA, TLJ and Solo portraying black males as cowards, liars, comic relief and cheaters, and, yet, the condemnation of the social justice crowd is directed at the public over the portrayal of women being too positive. Similarly, the one black main character in the last Ghostbusters doesn't represent black women very flatteringly, but there's no organized condemnation of that, just against the "sexist" fan base.

The thing that’s being lost/forgotten in this renewed debate about the last Ghostbusters is that most of the vitriol was BEFORE the movie even came out. BEFORE anyone had seen it. That’s an important distinction to me. I remember the arguments in general (and here specifically) and there was widespread opposition to the mere existence of the film -- not the actual product itself (Oceans 8 too). That Ghostbusters ultimately was mediocre at best (Hemsworth and McKinnon were great. The rest? Meh) shouldn’t mask the garbage heaped on it before it even got out into the world.

That's absolutely true, but it shouldn't be assumed that it was because of sexism. It's common for films to be blasted long before they're released, especially when they're remakes of classics. A remake of Ghostbusters, without any of the original cast and named simply "Ghostbusters," would've received significant backlash even if it had a male cast.

The fact that the cast was female did make the backlash worse, but not because people "didn't want women in it." It was because it looked lazy (take a popular movie, switch the genders and call it new) and like a stunt to "correct" the gender equality in the franchise (and if you don't think that that was on their mind, just look at the Hemsworth character). If you're going for that, though, doesn't a Ghostbusters team made up of both men and women make a lot more sense than a film that's just as gender unequal as the original? Regardless, I think that it's important to note the role of the accusations of sexism in fueling the backlash. You might post or tweet your negative thoughts once or twice, but get called out as sexist for them and you're liable to really get worked up.

 

[CHGoalie27]

Sucks they waited this long and that we are down one of the original characters.

We're down the character most responsible for the dark and dry humor

I loved both of the first movies pretty equally. They were both fun to play along to as a kid with all the toys The cartoon was also top tier and sure did keep some darker humor in it as well.

The girls failed only because they didn't stick to the story. They even had Bill Murray and not as Peter Venkman, which alone would've made it worlds better.

 

[Pilky01]

So who is in the cast? Im thinking a Jack Black type, a Lakeith Stanfield, a Saiorsia Ronan and a Latetia Wright.

I can’t help but cast a Benetton ad. The social identities of these new Ghostbusters are going to be a huge topic no matter what they go with so ideally I think they should select a cast that pisses off both extremes. That means no LGBTQ2S+ Ghostbusters but only 2 white people this time, and one of them is a chick.

 

[NyQuil]

The thing that’s being lost/forgotten in this renewed debate about the last Ghostbusters is that most of the vitriol was BEFORE the movie even came out. BEFORE anyone had seen it. That’s an important distinction to me. I remember the arguments in general (and here specifically) and there was widespread opposition to the mere existence of the film -- not the actual product itself (Oceans 8 too). That Ghostbusters ultimately was mediocre at best (Hemsworth and McKinnon were great. The rest? Meh) shouldn’t mask the garbage heaped on it before it even got out into the world.

I think this separates it from the issues with The Last Jedi as well. Someone feel free to correct me, but I don’t recall many pre-emptive strikes against The Last Jedi. The anger was reactive to the actual movie. That’s a different thing to me.

If someone sees a movie and dislikes it, fine. We may disagree, but at least it’s coming from an informed place.
But to kill something for its mere existence or concept without actually seeing/experiencing it? That I can’t abide. If you’re not willing to watch it, shut up and move on.

This is all true.

I just hope that, if I don’t like Captain Marvel, I can actually say it without being branded a sexist pig.

Ocean’s 8 was actually a decent heist film.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

It's strange to me is that we have TFA, TLJ and Solo portraying black males as cowards, liars, comic relief and cheaters, and, yet, the condemnation of the social justice crowd is directed at the public over the portrayal of women being too positive. Similarly, the one black main character in the last Ghostbusters doesn't represent black women very flatteringly, but there's no organized condemnation of that, just against the "sexist" fan base.



That's absolutely true, but it shouldn't be assumed that it was because of sexism. It's common for films to be blasted long before they're released, especially when they're remakes of classics. A remake of Ghostbusters, without any of the original cast and named simply "Ghostbusters," would've received significant backlash even if it had a male cast.

The fact that the cast was female did make the backlash worse, but not because people "didn't want women in it." It was because it looked lazy (take a popular movie, switch the genders and call it new) and like a stunt to "correct" the gender equality in the franchise (and if you don't think that that was on their mind, just look at the Hemsworth character). If you're going for that, though, doesn't a Ghostbusters team made up of both men and women make a lot more sense than a film that's just as gender unequal as the original? Regardless, I think that it's important to note the role of the accusations of sexism in fueling the backlash. You might post or tweet your negative thoughts once or twice, but get called out as sexist for them and you're liable to really get worked up.

Sure. I do agree there were people opposed to the broad laziness of the idea, though I clearly remember openness to a Seth Rogen led film. Not saying you, but there was some positive thoughts toward that.

However, there also were many ugly, vocal people opposed to the femaleness of the idea too. I won't belabor the point but there is ample evidence of this line of criticism and it's a sentiment that does continue today in regards to other properties.

The world isn't black and white. There are nuances. Some of that is well intentioned people with real, well thought criticisms. But unfortunately some of those nuances are sad children who don't want to share their toys.

Edit add: Also, just because an idea is lazy doesn't mean the end product is bad. Remakes of Halloween and Suspiria aren't the best ideas but I thought the movies were good.

 

[SPV]

I think a few people have nailed it here. The first movie was great because the characters were relatable and the story was solid. The second one was more slapstick. I think you need to start with a good ghost/horror story; and then add comedy from there

 

[Deen]

Going to be filming part of it in Calgary. I should go try and be an extra.

 

[Fantomas]

Why not just make a new movie with entirely new characters that is also good?

 

[Tuggy]

 

[bleedblue1223]

Interesting. Seems to have a different feel than the originals, just in a completely different way than the other reboot. Seems to have more of a Goonies/Stranger Things vibe?

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I’ve never seen any of the Ghostbuster films but I like Wolfhard so I watched the trailer

The Stranger Things influence is very apparent

 

[sdf]

Finaly i can understand lyrics of this song

 

[discostu]

Definitely a different tone, but, the small town horror approach definitely differentiates it from the originals.

I wouldn't be surprised if it does about as well as the female version. It doesn't look bad, but it also doesn't give a lot of reason to go see it.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Definitely a different tone, but, the small town horror approach definitely differentiates it from the originals.

I wouldn't be surprised if it does about as well as the female version. It doesn't look bad, but it also doesn't give a lot of reason to go see it.

According to IMDB, Murray, Weaver, Aykroid, Hudson and Potts are in it... My guess is it will do well.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Definitely a different tone, but, the small town horror approach definitely differentiates it from the originals.

I wouldn't be surprised if it does about as well as the female version. It doesn't look bad, but it also doesn't give a lot of reason to go see it.

I'm curious how it'll do. It's at least a different take on a remake/reboot. Something that seemingly honors the previous version, advances the story, but isn't just an exact copy of the original like many of the other remakes/reboots out there. This might have a chance at bringing a new audience in without angering the existing fans.

 

[David Dennison]

Looks like a movie thought up by a marketing exec. Ghostbusters nostalgia for the parents, kids storyline for their kids. Since I was a child of the 90s and have no kids of my own, I have zero desire to see this film.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Looks like a movie thought up by a marketing exec. Ghostbusters nostalgia for the parents, kids storyline for their kids. Since I was a child of the 90s and have no kids of my own, I have zero desire to see this film.

Yeah, this is probably what they are going for.

 

[Brock]

From the trailer, I'm assuming that the main character/granddaughter is related to Egon/Harold Ramis? And with his passing in real life, it's a nice way to honor his legacy with the story centering around his descendant. Probably why they were able to get the likes of Murray, Akroyd, etc to sign on.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

Finaly i can understand lyrics of this song

What about this version?

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I liked that it didn't lean too hard on the nostalgia.

Unfortunately, I'm not into Stranger Things at all so this really didn't much for me.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I bet Murray and Akroyd are ghosts

 

[Osprey]

That's rather different than I expected. I suppose that I figured that it would evoke the look and feel of Ghostbusters more and end with a cameo and/or part of the original theme music. I like that it didn't lean on nostalgia like that, as Do Make just said. Everything in the trailer looks like it comes from maybe not even the first half of the movie, and there are many returning characters that we've yet to see, so this "trailer" seems more like a teaser. It feels to me like the studio is deliberately showing restraint and taking a very different approach than the first trailer for the 2016 reboot did. That one screamed "Ghostbusters" and showed all of the movie's best bits (which weren't even that good). In contrast, this one is downplaying the franchise and withholding all of the best bits. It's probably smart, since there's a lot of cynicism after the last movie, so "get hyped for more Ghostbusters" probably isn't the approach to take. It also sparks curiosity over what they haven't shown us.

BTW, slight correction on the title... it's just Ghostbusters: Afterlife.