Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

[Spirit Zero]

Tooooooo late in the day!!

They should have done this ages ago.

The original cast hand over the reigns to a new younger team.

And for me that team would consist of...

Jack Black
Ben Stiller
Jonah Hill
Steve Carrell

(Owen Wilson, Paul Rudd, and Vince Vaughan on the bench just in case).

[thecooldud]

It does seem a good 25 years late.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by thecooldud

It does seem a good 25 years late.

Took 'em 50+ years to make a Mary Poppins sequel.....

[DenOfEarth]

Originally Posted by phobicsquirrel

Oh hell no let it die. What cred does this franchise have left?

I am done with this franchise. Its time to give up the ghost on live-action film. Unless you are willing to do an animated film or something like that with the original voice cast of the original films. At least the ones still alive anyway. Or a new animated series for Netflix like Extreme Ghostbusters.

Until then, I really am not interested in seeing anymore GB movies. That being said if this happens I will eventually watch it when it comes to rent and hope against all hope that it will be good as I always do.

As i said it before and i'll say it again, I have come to the sobering reality that in essence the audiences going to movies today are to blame for the chain of unoriginality being unbroken. For the countless streams of sequels, reboots, and remakes.

We have only ourselves to blame for Hollywood studios greenlighting one sequel, reboot and remake after another. We made Michael Bay's 4th Transformer film a hit at the box office while the 5th film was a flop, goodness for that. We made Jumanji Welcome to the Jungle aka Welcome to the bungle (in my view) so huge that now studios are trying to recapture that success with reboots/sequels, same for the Creed films and the new Halloween film which i disliked.

No. They are rolling in your cash. They have no reason to stop rehashing the same plotlines and using the same formula over and over again. And is that really what you want? You can't keep doing the same thing again, and again, and again, and keep expecting the same result. Eventually the returns are going to diminish and when they do? We have no one to blame but ourselves.

I see so many people talking about how hollywood is so unoriginal now, how it isn't what it used to be. "Why can't films be as good as they were in the 80's and 90's" and I say the same things trust me. But a lot of these people still pay to see the next focus group created blockbuster and stuff Disney's pockets with the next Star Wars film. If it has Star Wars on it? A good amount of people will compulsively buy a ticket like it's smack on a street corner. Luckily Solo bombed and i disliked that movie.

All this does is lead to Hollywood thinking you want more blockbusters not less. That you want more sequels, and reboots or remakes. Not less. That you want spin offs like a young han solo movie which i thought was mediocre and not as horrible as Last Jedi, yet luckily Solo bombed as i'm glad i didn't pay a ticket to see but wait until it comes to rent. And this ultimately leads to the franchises you love getting ridden into the ****ing ground. And then tossed in the garbage heap until 10 or twenty years roll by and they take it out of the trash and give it a new coat of paint.

All we are doing by making these reboots, sequels, remakes, prequels and based on movies hits? Is sending a message to the studios that this is what we want. And is it really? Do we really want a Top Gun way 2 many years 2 late sequel? Do we really want a remake of Flatliners? Do we really want to see another Saw movie? Does anyone really want to see that Baywatch movie came out that just bombed? Or another Friday The 13th reboot? I know I don't.

Or more importantly, do you? And if you don't want to see this? Then don't pay for it. Speak with your wallet. Wait to rent those films on blu ray or dvd. Don't just pay for a ticket just because of name recognition. That is exactly what leads to more reboots, remakes, prequels and sequels and the death of originality in mainstream cinema. Although Blade Runner 2045 was an excellent sequel done with care and passion and Mission Impossible is right on track with the new movie and i love it as MI Fallout is one of my faves of 2018. And A Quiet Place is the start of a fresh new horror franchise.


If you want to support a franchise or a sequel? Support a new one. Like John Wick for example being a fresh new action franchise. To show the studios that you want new franchises, with new characters, new universes and new worlds. Instead of the same ones, refurbished and sold back to you as brand new. Otherwise this nostalgia train isn't going to stop until it rides your memories into the ground.

The franchise is dead already on film! Just let the franchise go already from film Ackroyd, the last film was a complete failure in my view. Time to retire this franchise on film as it's a dead horse on film.

Ghostbusters never needed to be continued in film. They couldn't get a cast reunion together outside the video game and after Harold Ramis died any idea about a third film should have been put to rest. They had plenty of material to work with the franchise in other mediums. It didn't need saving as a film franchise. It left enough of a legacy as a pop culture icon of the 80s to stay as a two film series. The problem is film studios are too greedy for their own good and think that established franchise films coming back hold some kind of guaranteed profit margins based on brand name alone. Nobody is smart enough to look at a brand like Ghostbusters and properly and efficiently determine the best ways to utilize it based on the fanbase and the legacy it holds.

Look at Back to the future as an example of utilizing the brand in ways that don't mess with the legacy it left. They show enormous respect to their fanbase coming out with different merchandise and apparel and media over the years. They know you can't recreate the magic they had so they let the franchise live on through the fans love of the trilogy. Ghostbusters did so well with the video game. They gave their fans something so authentic and respectful to the films that it's such a shame they had to go the route they did for GB2016 in order to bank off its name. I am very thankful the new film flopped at the box-office and how it killed the franchise and sometimes it's better to kill something then let it suffer. This franchise is now like a wounded half-dead animal since the Real GBs ended and nothing else good has came out in the last 25 years with the exception of the 2009 video game and the merchandise and comics by IDW, no movies since then and other games during the years have sucked and Extreme GBs was ok show and this remake flopped at the box-office.

You just can't recapture the same lightning in a bottle like the original as the original focused on a brilliant mature intelligent script and reminded how well crafted it is a supernatural fantasy comedy adventure with horror trimmings, a solid cast of talented comedy actors who are given just enough space to subtly give wit around without undermining the world of the story. Has an edge to it in the original as the original is what i call great filmmaking.

The new version hits some viewers in the face with painfully forced juvenile Sandler (modern Sandler mind you)-esque humor, a poorly written unfunny script, poor pacing and plus no passion but money grab is. Plus none of the edge of the original movie and a lame villain who lacks the menace of Gozer and Viggo. This shows what 80's and 90's comedy did right, and what some modern comedy is doing wrong. Not to mention shooting the logo in the dick as a bad guy which is an insult to the franchise and there is no passion in this remake and just a cash-grab made by Sony. I have a few female friends who thought that 2016 reboot was poorly written, sexist towards men as one of my lady friends said it's an unfunny insult to women with such man hating agenda and well i enjoyed a few of Feig's movies, i felt he was the wrong guy for that project and even he didn't want to do it at first but he had to for the paycheck and he felt out of his comfort zone as R-rated films is what he is good at and not big budget PG-13 films as after this flopped, he should go back to original stuff.

Hollywood needs to focus on making good films and focus on the new franchises like i mentioned. not digging up some old favorite franchises and desperately sucking the dried up blood of the corpses into some focus-group approved poorly written piece of junk. Ghostbusters is best left alone. They should had made Ghostbusters 3 like years ago like in the 90's, and now that Harold Ramis is dead so has Ghostbusters. Studios need to rediscover the spirit that made great series/movies, not keep recyling past glories.

I hope some people here will understand what i am saying as the world has moved on and some franchises need to be dead and left alone only for the memory of the original to be seen/loved/watched by everyone for years to come on what quality filmmaking is all about and that i am right with my truth about why some series should be left alone as some would and not to recycle some past glories as we moved on and need some fresh new things for current film.

Sometimes dead is better like Jud Crandall in Pet Sematary would say and the franchise died with Harold Ramis.

[Arawn]

How can a reboot be "set in original universe"? That's not what reboot means.

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by Spirit Zero

Jack Black
Ben Stiller
Jonah Hill
Steve Carrell

(Owen Wilson, Paul Rudd, and Vince Vaughan on the bench just in case).

God, no. This should not feel like a Judd Apatow production.

Also, I'd make a point of having a female or two on the team. There's a huge difference between someone like Feig undertaking a GB film with female Ghostbusters, and somebody with a little more creative integrity and an ear for tone and style. But then I thought Feig's attempt wasn't the complete crime against humanity it was painted to be. It just felt incredibly misjudged in most respects.

[DenOfEarth]

I thought the 2016 film which me and one of my youtube reviewer friends who is an excellent reviewer named Ocpcommunications (if anyone seen his hilarious and honest rant/review on youtube) calls "Ballbusters" was an utter disaster of a movie that was poorly written, badly paced with unlikable characters without charisma or personality, all men being ass holes, cringe inducing cameos from the original cast, ripping off the movies, shooting the GB logo in the balls (which is why me and one of my friends call it Ballbusters) even with them flipping off the cameraa, jokes that fall flat on it's face with no wit or sarcasm like when one of them said about bad mouth metal and saying with a dragon "This music is so bad it's irritating to ghosts" and when she fell "I don't know if this is a lady thing or a race thing but i'm mad at hell', where's the joke in that? unfunny.

Personally i feel this franchise died with Ramis and from now on, any other attempt at a movie in live-action not made by him is a shitty moneygrab and i'm a real moviegoer with high standards.

[jtu128]

Ok so here is my cast for the main team,

Danny McBride as Peter Venkman
Jonah Hill as Ray Stantz
Lakeith Stanfield as Egon Spengler

...let’s be honest, we don’t need a Winston

Sacha Baron Cohen as Louis Tully
Charlize Theron as Dana Barrett

[bigrob]

yaaaaaawn

Been promised a Ghostbusters 3 since 1990

I'll just stick with GB1 & 2. Endless hours of entertainment. If it does happen though, more then happy to check it out.

[avs commenter]

do people actually want more Ghostbusters?

[DenOfEarth]

Originally Posted by jtu128

Ok so here is my cast for the main team,

Danny McBride as Peter Venkman
Jonah Hill as Ray Stantz
Lakeith Stanfield as Egon Spengler

...let’s be honest, we don’t need a Winston

Sacha Baron Cohen as Louis Tully
Charlize Theron as Dana Barrett

NO, no recasting of Venkman, Stantz, Egon and Winston! Murray IS Venkman, Ramis IS Spengler, Ackyrod IS Stanz and Hudson IS Zeddimore! accept no substitutes, i dislike the idea of recasting those iconic characters with someone else.

They are not the same as Batman, James Bond (He was a literature character who was brought to life in print before he had movies), Superman, Sherlock Holmes, Catwoman, Wonder Woman, Pennywise, Jud Crandall, Dracula, Raiden or any other character that was established and brought to life in print like comics/novels/books and in video games.

Some people are actually defending recasting iconic film characters with different actors. And even more so with the recent release of Solo which i disliked. They actually think that all film characters are fair game for a new actor portraying them.

And it's fine that they feel that way. But I vehemently disagree and I just don't understand. Sure. I do have exceptions, like Bond (he was a literature character) or characters from novels or comic books and video games. But for the most part, I want beloved film characters (original characters made for film and not from other sources) to remain pure and untouched by half-assed or horrible attempts to recapture lightning in a bottle.

Some roles have actors that were born to play them and there really are no substitutes. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Stallone as Rocky Balboa, Peter Weller as RoboCop, Bill Murray as Peter Venkman, Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly and Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger are all examples of this. And any actor that will attempt to play the character will pale in comparison. They have the charisma and personality that is unique only to them and that is what makes these characters so iconic and what brought them to life.

And don't give me the "They will make it their own" response. Make it their own means they will take the character and make it something completely alien to the character we all know and love in order to separate it from the original, potentially swap the genders, or just half-heartedly attempt to capture the same magic.

I have never seen a single remake with an iconic character or film have a lead in a sequel (like Robocop 3 for instance) that is anywhere near as memorable or as effective as the original for these same reasons. The track record is abysmal and that is why I don't agree with the idea of every character in every film is fair game for a re-imagining.

The rare times I have seen a remake be successful is when the character was not played by an actor that was irreplaceable or the film featured different characters altogether. And I honestly prefer the second approach. In three of the most well-received remakes of all time The Fly and The Blob, they all have one thing in common. They don't have the same characters as the originals. They have their own. And because of this their films stand on their own two feet and have created new characters that audiences loved and still remember fondly to this day. Even Evil Dead remake which despite i disliked it, at least created it's own characters and not the same character like Ash since Campbell IS Ash.

What's the better option, continue to dig up popular cinematic characters out of the grave every ten or twenty years and try to do the impossible and find the perfect actor to play the role again, or stop doing that and put that effort into finding new characters for a new generation?

There need to be limits. Otherwise, you get A wannabee John Cena as RoboCop, and a southern friend Freddy who sounds like Sling blade. I would rather these iconic made-for-cinema (created by cinema) characters be retired on film and only brought back in books, comics, and video games then see lazy attempts by Hollywood to bring them back with new faces in "new" films just to piggyback off the success of the previous franchise.

I'd say if you want to do a GB sequel just have 2 of the old GBs be teachers and have new characters to be ghostbusters instead of recasting the established characters of Venkman/Zeddimore/Spengler/Stantz as the DNA of ackroyd/Ramis/Murray/Hudson are in those characters, just create new characters.

I'm done with this franchise already, i just want something new.

[levcore]

I'll gladly welcome more Ghostbusters. I enjoy all 3.

[jtu128]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

do people actually want more Ghostbusters?

I would love a legit horror comedy, but that will never happen.

[Zombo]

I'm all for a sequel with Dan as Stanz and Bill as Venkman having cameos as their old selves passing the torch on to a new group.

The problem I see is getting this new group to commit to more sequels. I wouldn't cast big Hollywood names otherwise.

I'll never be done with the Ghostbusters franchise. I was fine with the whole SNL female version. I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to that as well.

I just don't want another " reboot " with a re-casting....I would rather it be labeled a true sequel to the original two films and carrying on from there with a younger group. Even if Venkman is a ghost and Stanz is the only standing ghostbuster alive in the film. I'd be happy if Zeddimore was in it as well. It would also be nice to have the real Dana and Louis back for cameos.

I say go for it....light'em up.

[dgoswald]

Murray looked like someone who was having a rifle pointed at him off-stage in GB2016. He didn't want to be involved, and it showed. The "passing the torch" sentiment that gets discussed in these situations is just a bit of an albatross around the neck of the filmmakers. Just make a good film.

[DenOfEarth]

Can't we have something new already? your just gonna get diminishing returns until the bottom completely falls.

[MifuneFan]

They just need to do a Ghostbusters: Into the Buster-Verse movie to tie the OG world, Cartoon world, and Girlbusters world together

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by jtu128

Ok so here is my cast for the main team,

Danny McBride as Peter Venkman
Jonah Hill as Ray Stantz
Lakeith Stanfield as Egon Spengler

...let’s be honest, we don’t need a Winston

Sacha Baron Cohen as Louis Tully
Charlize Theron as Dana Barrett

This idea would almost be worse than the 2016 movie.

[postmodel]

I'm all for more Ghostbusters. I will give it a chance and hope for the best.

With that, I think it's safe to say we will get some Aykroyd/Hudson action. My dream is the opening sequence being Ray and Winston (hopefully Venkman!) on a call before they even attempt to bring in new recruits, or whatever. Even if this call shows their age and the Ghost gets away. It would just be great to see the OG GBs in action before getting help from some teens.

Though I wonder if the whole teen story is them figuring out on their own how to bust some ghosts and the GBs coming to find them. Who knows? Well, some people do, but not me.

[Socko]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Since no one can replace Egon without controversy, I wouldn't mind if they just went with the 3 remaining survivors of the orginal Ghostbusters.

This.

I like Ramis as an artist, but I would not like the producers spending money on a CGI character that just wont do it for most.
He is dead and they can spend a few minutes discussing him and then move along and pass the torch.

I am glad Reitman is using his own company to produce. Maybe they can go the extra mile to actually make a good movie.