Ghostbusters: Afterlife

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I agree. So the parts concerning what the OG Ghostbusters are up to might not 100% accurate. But I do think the majority of it is accurate, because that would explain why they would all come to this town all these years later. 

I'm trying to answer without giving anything away, because you can only do the spoilers on PC and I'm on my phone now, lol.

You can do spoilers on a phone. You just type the spoiler tags in either side of the post. I can’t show you how to do it because it just comes up as a spoiler.  

[Dazey]

I'm doubling down on the Goonies thing. The music at about 1:20 when she's looking around Egon's basement totally reminds me on the scene where Mikey finds One Eyed Willy on the pirate ship.  

[ZoSoRose]

I don't have nostalgic attachment to the franchise but I respect the first film and really like it. I never saw 2 and thought the reboot  was just a genericly crappy and unnecessary movie although it wasn't those actress' faults. 

So all that said, I liked this trailer. Sounds like they force awakened the series with a young cast and the originals in supporting roles. That's a good idea

[rocknroll41]

The first few shots of this trailer alone, with just Finn Wolfheart talking to the girl, was already better than the entire 2016 movie (and that’s coming from someone who thought the 2016 movie was at least better than Ghostbusters 2).

[DieselDaisy]

I found Ghostbusters II, albeit not as good as the original, a worthy sequel. I have never understood the disdain for it. 

[megaguns1982]

I didn’t see Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd or anyone for that matter in this trailer from the original. 

Seems they’re going down the terminator route and trying a reboot with some old faces with smaller roles as a launching platform for new faces..

it will be shit.... guaranteed

[rocknroll41]

52 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I found Ghostbusters II, albeit not as good as the original, a worthy sequel. I have never understood the disdain for it. 

It’s a giant step backwards at the beginning of the film. They act as though the first film didn’t even happen. How could people think the ghostbusters are “full of crap” when New York was attacked by a giant marshmallow man? Also, the pacing is very slow, and the movie has a consistent “low energy” feel to it throughout.

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, rocknroll41 said:

It’s a giant step backwards at the beginning of the film. They act as though the first film didn’t even happen. How could people think the ghostbusters are “full of crap” when New York was attacked by a giant marshmallow man? Also, the pacing is very slow, and the movie has a consistent “low energy” feel to it throughout.

I am not saying it is as good as the original but it is what I'd call a ''worthy sequel''. 6-7/10 if I was to review it. 

[Angelica]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

I found Ghostbusters II, albeit not as good as the original, a worthy sequel. I have never understood the disdain for it. 

Agree. It’s messy but I find it really enjoyable. Peter MacNicol alone makes it worthwhile.

[vloors]

The trailer looks good but the only thing its missing is that comedy aspect that GB1 and GB2 had. To me thats part of the charm of the franchise. 

 

[Iron MikeyJ]

GB2 has gotten a bad wrap. I agree, it's probably around 7/10 while the original is a 10/10. Murray's performance in that film alone makes it a "good" movie. He is nearly as good in 2 as he was in 1, definitely still in his "prime." 

The biggest problem with the film is that it follows all the same beats as the original. Which is generally a bad idea ANYTIME a sequel does that. 

That's what I like about the new film, its NOT following the beats of 1 and 2 (which was another mistake 2016 made). 

[Iron MikeyJ]

3 hours ago, vloors said:

The trailer looks good but the only thing its missing is that comedy aspect that GB1 and GB2 had. To me thats part of the charm of the franchise. 

 

After the MESS that was the 2016 movie, I appreciate them taking a more serious tone (that film was joke after joke after joke). I'm sure there will be funny moments in it, but it's probably not going to be a "comedy." Which again I think is the right approach. You can't recreate the chemistry that the original cast had, no matter who you try and get. It's like gnr, it'll just feel like Nugnr compared to the original. So NOT trying to recreate the comedic tone is probably for the best. Although, I DO think it'll have its moments.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Iron MikeyJ

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I found Ghostbusters II, albeit not as good as the original, a worthy sequel. I have never understood the disdain for it. 

Yeah, being from Brooklyn NY I loved watching those films in NYC. I love when the mayor says it's every New Yorkers God given right to be grumpy or something like that. He was so right! lol

I know Bill Murray and the rest are older now, but they were so funny.

On 12/9/2019 at 12:02 PM, Dazey said:

Who?

Sorry I had the wrong actor. I can't remember the other Ghostbuster's name. He was in the Crow too.

[RussTCB]

11 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Sorry I had the wrong actor. I can't remember the other Ghostbuster's name. He was in the Crow too.

Winston was the character name and Ernie Hudson is the actors name. 

[DieselDaisy]

Token Black Guy is his name haha. 

[Dazey]

7 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

After the MESS that was the 2016 movie, I appreciate them taking a more serious tone (that film was joke after joke after joke). I'm sure there will be funny moments in it, but it's probably not going to be a "comedy." Which again I think is the right approach. You can't recreate the chemistry that the original cast had, no matter who you try and get. It's like gnr, it'll just feel like Nugnr compared to the original. So NOT trying to recreate the comedic tone is probably for the best. Although, I DO think it'll have its moments.

Thing is I never really thought of GB1 as a comedy, at least not in the typical sense. I mean sure there are a lot of funny moments but the whole thing is played pretty straight. The humour from the characters is very dry and sarcastic which is why the 2016 reboot missed by such a wide mark. I just can't imagine the characters from the 1984 and 2016 movies inhabiting the same space. I mean can you picture Peter Venkman deadpanning his way through a scene followed by Melissa McCarthy making a bunch of fart jokes?  

Edited December 10, 2019 by Dazey

[Iron MikeyJ]

4 hours ago, Dazey said:

Thing is I never really thought of GB1 as a comedy, at least not in the typical sense. I mean sure there are a lot of funny moments but the whole thing is played pretty straight. The humour from the characters is very dry and sarcastic which is why the 2016 reboot missed by such a wide mark. I just can't imagine the characters from the 1984 and 2016 movies inhabiting the same space. I mean can you picture Peter Venkman deadpanning his way through a scene followed by Melissa McCarthy making a bunch of fart jokes?  

I dont really consider GB1 or 2 as "comedy's" either. But all the people involved came from comedy lineage, so that's why it kinda gets stuck in the comedy category. Honestly, it's a film that blends a few genres (horror, sci fi, comedy, action, romantic comedy). But yet it doesnt really fit in any of those categories fully. 

 

As for your comments about the 2016 film... I agree 100% with everything you have to say. Having said that, even thinking about that film (or its performances) make me want to kick myself in the balls. It's seriously one of the worst reboots/remakes ever made, maybe THE worst. They didnt get a SINGLE thing right about that abomination. Are there worse films out there? Yes. But I can't think of many that fell from such a high perch. Yes, I could find a movie on netflix right now that is worse, but most people have never heard of it and it had a budget of 5 million. Honestly, the only people that like that movie are the same people that like The Last Jedi and have high hope's for Rise of Skywalker.💩 Yeah, that's right, I said it!!! 😛

Edited December 11, 2019 by Iron MikeyJ

[Rovim]

19 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

and it had a budget of 5 million

The budget for GB 2016 was 144 million$ (doesn't include marketing, just production)

Edited December 11, 2019 by Rovim

[Iron MikeyJ]

6 minutes ago, Rovim said:

The budget for GB 2016 was 144 million$ (doesn't include marketing, just production)

Ya I know, that was part of my point.

[Rovim]

Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

Ya I know, that was part of my point.

I guess you meant marketing budget, my bad.

[megaguns1982]

2 hours ago, Creed said:

 just watch from 2:00. Its so much better...

That’s awesome. It really makes it that much better, I just hope they don’t pull a dumb and dumber to and have the iconic car in it for about a minute for nostalgia purposes.

much like dumb and dumber, back to the future etc the car is almost like another actor.

[DieselDaisy]

I recently watched the remake - for completion's sake - and feel like tearing my eyeballs out. I am never going to be able to erase this film from my brain, correct?

Why does the blond one keep doing spasticated random dances and fist-pumps? 

Truly one of the most appalling films I have ever seen. Cannot believe they managed to coax the old crew back for cameos - believe Aykroyd was creatively involved? Horrendous film. 

[soon]

This Monday, Reunited Aparts' episode is Ghost Busters

 

[metallex78]

On 13/06/2020 at 4:53 AM, soon said:

This Monday, Reunited Aparts' episode is Ghost Busters

 

I haven’t watched this yet, but do they talk about the upcoming film in this?

[soon]

2 hours ago, metallex78 said:

I haven’t watched this yet, but do they talk about the upcoming film in this?

I'd planned to watch this by now, but I havent watched it yet either. In previous episodes there has been bits of discussion about 'what the future holds' so Id bet theres at least some.