• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE — Final Trailer "Hey, have you missed us?"

FunkMiller

Gold Member
This memberberry shit really has to stop. I have the original, brilliant Ghostbusters to watch, if I want to see the original crew in action. I don’t need to watch old men shuffling around in suits that don’t fit them anymore, looking like their backs are about to throw out from wearing the proton packs. I also don’t need the exact same villain, or the exact same set piece.

Is this basically modern cinema now? Either characters being bastardised for political messaging, or endless nostalgia bait callbacks, because the talent pool in Hollywood script writing is now a puddle of piss behind an executive’s office?

I liked a good chunk of Afterlife… then it shits the bed with all the nostalgia bait.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
I would have liked it better if Ray had come to the small town after Phoebe called, to help.

I think at one point he might have. There are behind the scenes photos of him at the Sheriff station. His daughter does play a deputy in that scene, so he could've been there for that, or it's something that was changed later.
 

sinnergy

Member
This memberberry shit really has to stop. I have the original, brilliant Ghostbusters to watch, if I want to see the original crew in action. I don’t need to watch old men shuffling around in suits that don’t fit them anymore, looking like their backs are about to throw out from wearing the proton packs. I also don’t need the exact same villain, or the exact same set piece.

Is this basically modern cinema now? Either characters being bastardised for political messaging, or endless nostalgia bait callbacks, because the talent pool in Hollywood script writing is now a puddle of piss behind an executive’s office?

I liked a good chunk of Afterlife… then it shits the bed with all the nostalgia bait.
But that’s what fans want 🤣
 

plushyp

Gold Member
Is this basically modern cinema now? Either characters being bastardised for political messaging, or endless nostalgia bait callbacks, because the talent pool in Hollywood script writing is now a puddle of piss behind an executive’s office?
Unrelated but this is why BR:2049 kind of failed in part as well. Denis wanted it to stand more on its own but Ridley wanted it to have one too many ties to the original.
 

plushyp

Gold Member
Probably because he saw what happened when he let Lindelof remove face huggers and chest bursters from Prometheus.
Current Ridley has lost his touch with Sci-Fi because BR2049 would have been a better film if it had lesser ties to the old film. He should stick to his current period pieces that suit him better I feel.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Current Ridley has lost his touch with Sci-Fi because BR2049 would have been a better film if it had lesser ties to the old film. He should stick to his current period pieces that suit him better I feel.

Nah, BR2049 was perfect because it answered the one question NORMAL people had after the first movie. Ridley wanted the movie to deal with his dementia that Deckard was a Replicant.
 

GloveSlap

Member
I wanted to like this, but it didn't work for me at all. I felt nothing the entire movie, especially the last 3rd which is weird. The Ecto-1 main street scene was the only thing i liked.

I was hoping this would wash the taste of the new Matrix out of my mouth, but nope. It ended up making me even more depressed about modern mainstream movies than i already was.
 

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Right... Maybe they were using Ecto-2


Ray & Peter were sitting on the wings
I had that.😁
Anyway, I did really enjoy the film but....yeah them showing up at the end out of the blue was disappointing.
I like the after credits much much more.
And after seeing them I do kinda want them to do a sequel where they are more involved.
Have a younger crew still (seriously Paul Rudd needs to be a Ghostbuster) that works with them, and they're more supervisory and and research.
Peter, Ray & Winston could go out to evaluate jobs before sending in the team and could go along in some busts.
Kinda like they did in GBII
and Bill, Ray would just be in his regular clothes, like he did here, Winston always suits up 😂
 
Last edited:

Fbh

Member
This memberberry shit really has to stop. I have the original, brilliant Ghostbusters to watch, if I want to see the original crew in action. I don’t need to watch old men shuffling around in suits that don’t fit them anymore, looking like their backs are about to throw out from wearing the proton packs. I also don’t need the exact same villain, or the exact same set piece.

Is this basically modern cinema now? Either characters being bastardised for political messaging, or endless nostalgia bait callbacks, because the talent pool in Hollywood script writing is now a puddle of piss behind an executive’s office?

I liked a good chunk of Afterlife… then it shits the bed with all the nostalgia bait.

It's sad but true.
I don't think it's about there not being good writers, but rather that going all in on nostalgia has shown again and again to be an easy way to ensure sales.
Why "risk" making a good original movie that people "might" show up to watch when you can just take some established IP, make a bland nostalgia fueled sequel and almost ensure it will do well.

Now that Spiderman has made a billion almost entirely with fanservice it's only going to get worse.
 
Last edited:

QSD

Member
Just saw this:

What I liked:
Egon's grandkids definitely look/feel the part
Kids in general were likeable characters
Setting it out in the boonies was a nice change of scenery
I liked the idea of having Egon be there as a ghost to guide his grandkids, and the last scene was nice.

What I didn't like:
Story relied too much on GB1, it would have been a more entertaining movie without the gozer/zuul retread, just have an evil Aztec god try to reach the material plane or something, better than Gozer again with the same 80ies grace jones style hairdo...
Also a setting like this and no skinwalkers or something along those lines? Missed opportunity...
It's not actually scary at any point, nor do the ghosts feel threatening or dangerous. Part of this has to do with the weird but perhaps brave choice to have the movie be really bright/sunny - the first ghost appears in broad daylight.
Original cast cameo's were too short to really feel natural
 

Kilau

Gold Member
My wife and I both really enjoyed the movie. I’m a huge fan of the original and she can’t remember if she’s seen the first one lol.

Actress that plays Phoebe was really good.
 

sol_bad

Gold Member
Wife and I watched the 2016 movie last night for the 2nd time. We still enjoyed it and still laughed. Sure, some of the humor doesn't work but at least the film knows what it is and runs with it. Afterlife really does take itself too seriously and takes everything from the first film as serious, even though the first film is as far from serious as it can possibly be.

I like how the 2016 film is very colorful and even though it had a giant stampeding monster like the original film it still felt like it was doing it's own thing. I forgot about the credits scene mentioning Zuul, so in a way I'm glad it didn't get a sequel as it seemed like it was going to retread Ghostbusters 1 ...... which is what Afterlife then went and did.

I don't own any of the films on blu ray so I'll happily buy GB1, 2016 and Afterlife on UHD.

*EDIT*
Forgot I had this page saved to read after seeing Afterlife, I agree with it 100%.
 
Last edited:

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Wife and I watched the 2016 movie last night for the 2nd time. We still enjoyed it and still laughed. Sure, some of the humor doesn't work but at least the film knows what it is and runs with it. Afterlife really does take itself too seriously and takes everything from the first film as serious, even though the first film is as far from serious as it can possibly be.

I like how the 2016 film is very colorful and even though it had a giant stampeding monster like the original film it still felt like it was doing it's own thing. I forgot about the credits scene mentioning Zuul, so in a way I'm glad it didn't get a sequel as it seemed like it was going to retread Ghostbusters 1 ...... which is what Afterlife then went and did.

I don't own any of the films on blu ray so I'll happily buy GB1, 2016 and Afterlife on UHD.

*EDIT*
Forgot I had this page saved to read after seeing Afterlife, I agree with it 100%.
Ghostbusters is as much GB84 as Scary Movie is Scream.
Scream while a slasher is meta and has comedic qualities, that why Scary movie (imo) wasn't as funny as it thought it was.
Because Scream mock itself anyway
Between the two GB films
The comedy is a different type of comedy.
So I disagree with the article, Ghostbusters 1984 was a spooky supernatural film first (it's not a horror) with Comedy sprinkled on top.
Ghostbusters 2016 is straight up over the top comedy dancing in it.
It's like a Spoof.
GBA does get the tone right, but it has different setting, time period and characters which are kids.
So it doesn't feel exactly the same.
James Franco GIF
 

Billbofet

Member
Just finished and thought it was super weak. No humor and so lovingly gushes over all the nostalgia it was just too much. Reminded me of Force Awakens just not done nearly as well.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
What was done well in TFA?

Introducing a Mary Sue and a Han Solo who's regressed and goes out like a punk isn't exactly something done well either.

Interesting story beats about a raised storm trooper breaking his indoctrination and defecting gets ignored immediately.

We didn’t realise it at the time, but The Force Awakens was the most poisonous movie ever made. It’s infected the rest of the entertainment industry with the idea that repetition, nostalgia and appealing to the past is the only and best way to make money.
 

NahaNago

Member
Just finished and thought it was super weak. No humor and so lovingly gushes over all the nostalgia it was just too much. Reminded me of Force Awakens just not done nearly as well.
Hmm. I can see why you would say that. I agree that it was weak and they did do a lot of nostalgia. They probably decided to get rid of the humor because of the last ghostbuster movie. I'm still trying to figure out what was ghostbusters. It wasn't really a comedy, or action, or horror. It felt serious at times but then you had Bill Murray goofing around or cracking jokes plus some of the monster really were creepy/freaky looking. I wouldn't say it reminded me of force awakens since that felt like a star wars movie to me whereas this movie honestly didn't feel like ghostbusters. Well I did call it the family friendly ghostbusters or kid ghostbusters movie.
 
Last edited:

Billbofet

Member
What was done well in TFA?

Introducing a Mary Sue and a Han Solo who's regressed and goes out like a punk isn't exactly something done well either.

Interesting story beats about a raised storm trooper breaking his indoctrination and defecting gets ignored immediately.
I thought, at the time, Force Awakens was a nice hand-off from the last generation to this new set of characters.
At the end of FA, I was genuinely interested to see where it was going. The next two movies ruined that entirely for me and made FA much worse in retrospect, but I did think the characters were interesting up to that point.

Afterlife, for me, was all the suck and shit it took Star Wars five years to get to in the span of just the third act.
 

Fbh

Member
This was better than the 2016 movie but it wasn't particularly great.
The girl was annoying and yet she was the only one with any sort of character arc, Paul Rudd and the Strangers Thing kid felt like they were in this as a marketing tool, and like most of these movies it depends too much on member berries.
 

Billbofet

Member
This was better than the 2016 movie but it wasn't particularly great.
The girl was annoying and yet she was the only one with any sort of character arc, Paul Rudd and the Strangers Thing kid felt like they were in this as a marketing tool, and like most of these movies it depends too much on member berries.
The girl was probably the only developed character in the entire movie, but it does that thing I hate with kid geniuses in movies. Just because she "likes science" she is magically Ph.D. level at reading tectonic maps, physics, engineering, math, puzzles, thermodynamics, etc. Like, just pure genius in every situation that calls for it.
Imagine if this was a normal teenager or even an above-average intelligent teenager..the world would have ended!!! Even if she was smart in all the disciplines listed above but just slightly weak in seismology - Earth done!
 

Fbh

Member
The girl was probably the only developed character in the entire movie, but it does that thing I hate with kid geniuses in movies. Just because she "likes science" she is magically Ph.D. level at reading tectonic maps, physics, engineering, math, puzzles, thermodynamics, etc. Like, just pure genius in every situation that calls for it.
Imagine if this was a normal teenager or even an above-average intelligent teenager..the world would have ended!!! Even if she was smart in all the disciplines listed above but just slightly weak in seismology - Earth done!

Agreed, that's why I found her annoying. I've always disliked that trope.

I get that since she is related to Egon they want to make her character similar, but with Egon it felt earned because he wasn't 12 years old.
 
I just rewatched the 2016 movie before this, and it's not good... but at least it's a comedy. This latest sequel is a worse Ghostbusters movie than it is a movie, in an overall sense. The pandering, the saccharine nostalgia, the pointless throwbacks, and the complete lack actual comedy render it the worst of the series, for me.

Ghostbusters is a comedy film -- it has one of the highest jokes-per-minute ratio of all time. Dan Aykroyd is a weirdo, and because of that he does take the supernatural stuff quite seriously, which really works for the sake of the narrative conflict and is part of what makes the movie so special... however it is really obviously a comedy first and foremost. To not follow up on that on even the most basic level feels way, way off. The result is JJ Abram's presents: Ghostbusters... which is just about the worst possible way to take this series as far as I'm concerned.

D- from me.
 
Last edited:

trikster40

Member
Finally watched it today, it was enjoyable. Kids carried it better than I thought, Podcast reminded me of a young Corey Haim.

I loved the kids corny jokes lol
 

Krathoon

Member
It is a swan song of a movie. More of an epilogue. I don't see why they abandoned everything when they had evidence of ghosts.
 
Was more the dumb behaviour of a lot of the side characters that dragged the movie down though.

Which is all Lindelof. I liked the idea of Weyland being on board the ship in a desperate attempt to stay alive, but that was about it. Rest of his additions are pretty terrible.

What was done well in TFA?

Introducing a Mary Sue and a Han Solo who's regressed and goes out like a punk isn't exactly something done well either.

Interesting story beats about a raised storm trooper breaking his indoctrination and defecting gets ignored immediately.

I read a good interview with a writer on Youtube that makes the point that the way Solo dies is the kind of death reserved for villains, falling into an endless shaft like the Emperor. This tells you all you need to know about how modern LucasFilm see the character. Old White Man....DIE. Horribly. Like the villain you are.

Found it: (actually I think another 'gaffer posted it in a different shit on TFA thread)

 
Last edited:
Top Bottom