Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by jtu128

$

I knew someone would go there! I dunno, I think he could've started his career making spectacle fluff, but he's actually made some thoughtful and decent films. I'm just a little surprised.

[thecooldud]

I'm sure $ don't hurt, but it is a family thing, and he probably doesn't like the idea of the 2016 trainwreck being the last GB we ever get anymore than the fans do.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by oilers73

"We're sorry you paid money to see Ghostbusters (2016). In order to truly apologize to you, we'll need you to pay money to see Ghostbusters (2020)." Yeah, that sounds about right.

I never paid money for seeing it. Heck the trailers practically kept me as far away as possible, avoided that like the plague. I ended up watching it once at my friends house since they bought it. Oof. Had to watch some Men In Black to try and wipe my memory of it.

So how about: "We're sorry for betraying fans of the franchise for pushing crappy SJW Agendas into it and allowing that terrible script to pass, and for the awful directing and lack of any good soundtrack that even remotely resembles the original scores. To make up for it, we've fired Paul Feig, we've currently got Ernie Hudson on board, here's a teaser trailer with the actual vehicle you know and love, with a soundtrack to take you back to your childhood." That sounds more realistic and truthful.

And so far, that 52 second teaser trailer has done a better job of taking me back to the 1980s than 2016 Ghostbusters did in its entirety. I eagerly anticipate another trailer in the future, and get a gist of the story/script. I like to actually see a movie before deciding if it stinks or not, but hot damn it was difficult to do with 2016 Ghostbusters. Seeing the final product put the nail in that coffin. I just hope that this one turns out good, and it looks promising at this point. We shall see. So far I am accepting their apology in the form of a trailer.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

Or people praising it as a way to bash the remake?

Yeah, I think might just be possible that some people will use this as a vehicle to bash the remake.

[Indiana Jonezzz...]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You never know though. If the proper GBIII does well then they may resurrect the ladeez version, possibly as a lower budgeted option. A little spooky comedy-thriller rather than a big-budget 'saving the world' kinda movie could work well.

I can’t imagine they’d even consider doing that, I think it would be far too confusing for the average audience having 2 completely separate groups of Ghostbusters films ongoing.

Anyway, I am overjoyed at this news, I’ve wanted a Ghostbusters III since 1989, and I really thought that ship had sailed after the 2016 reboot, so it’s wonderful news. Hearing Jason Reitman’s comments about the original film, gives me hope that he understands what made it tick, and that he’ll manage to create a similar tone. I can’t wait to hear more about it, fingers crossed they knock it out of the park!

[thecooldud]

How dare people bash a s****y, agenda-driven garbage remake done by people with zero love for the franchise and zero comedic talent to boot. The cheek of them.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by thecooldud

How dare people bash a s****y, agenda-driven garbage remake done by people with zero love for the franchise and zero comedic talent to boot. The cheek of them.

Precisely. I've already explained it before, but I'll mention part of it again (paraphrasing) : I am glad I held out for better. It took 4 years, but it's better than 30!

[Mattgreenbean]

If it's teens, I hope it's "big teens" opposed to teens that look 12, weigh 100lbs, and stand 5'2". You know, 80's teens that were played by 22 year dudes that could kick butt and chicks that also kicked butt and looked hot doing it.

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by thecooldud

How dare people bash a s****y, agenda-driven garbage remake done by people with zero love for the franchise and zero comedic talent to boot. The cheek of them.

And the problem with some people is the assumption that having a predominant female cast is why we accuse the remake of being politically driven.... No, it's the blatant intent to portray every male character as an assh0le, incompetent, or an idiot( Hemsworth's character was bizarrely moronic and unfunny ), the 4th wall break jab at the internet trolls, and the social media fiascos which the cast and crew got involved in ready with itchy agenda fingers. To say there wasn't some ulterior BS at play is more humorous than the whole improv infested misfire itself.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by jess1581

And the problem with some people is the assumption that having a predominant female cast is why we accuse the remake of being politically driven.... No, it's the blatant intent to portray every male character as an assh0le, incompetent, or an idiot( Hemsworth's character was bizarrely moronic and unfunny ), the 4th wall break jab at the internet trolls, and the social media fiascos which the cast and crew got involved in ready with itchy agenda fingers. To say there wasn't some ulterior BS at play is more hunorous than the whole improv infested misfire itself.

How dare us want a decent Ghostbusters movie without a bad script, bad directing and stale cringe-worthy attempts at humor!

I've already explained it before, but I'll gladly say it once more: it wasn't the fault of the cast. It has nothing to do with their gender either. They did the best they could with the steaming mess they were standing in. You could put males in their places and the movie would still be a fire pit from hell due to that awful script they had to follow to get the job done, not to mention they had to work with Paul Feig, who just doesn't understand how a Ghostbusters movie should work, but only understands how to weave unwanted messages about society into the movie.

I respect the amount of crap the cast had to endure making that dumpster fire - they are good people at heart, and that's without bringing race or gender into it at all (which isn't even a factor at any point, some people just like to create drama with that BS).

[postmodel]

Oscar better be in it. And whether or not he’s a ghostbuster, I hope he is shown having musical talent. Might sound weird among all these current comments, but his mom and dad were professional musicians. He might have dad issues (since dad went to London when he was a baby breaking up his famly) and he might see Venkman as more of a father figure. Either way, he’s more likely to be naturally musical due to his parents careers and interests.

And, yes, I’m trying to avoid the tired 2016 comments by having fun speculating what could happen in this one! Haha.

[Hazel Motes]

So many questions. Bill? Rick? The absence of Egon? Will they actually film in NYC again? Hmmmmmm.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by postmodel

Oscar better be in it. And whether or not he’s a ghostbuster, I hope he is shown having musical talent. Might sound weird among all these current comments, but his mom and dad were professional musicians. He might have dad issues (since dad went to London when he was a baby breaking up his famly) and he might see Venkman as more of a father figure. Either way, he’s more likely to be naturally musical due to his parents careers and interests.

I never thought about Oscar. If the movie is set in 2019/2020, Oscar would be 35/36/37 respectively. Perfect for someone like Jake Gyllenhaal (though he is 38, I think he could pull off being a few years younger for the sake of the movie). Jake is merely an example, not my choice of casting (though I wouldn't mind).

[CyberpunkCentral]

3 Details You May Have Missed in the Ghostbusters 3 Teaser! (Nerdist News w/ Jessica Chobot) - YouTube

[postmodel]

Originally Posted by kylor

I never thought about Oscar. If the movie is set in 2019/2020, Oscar would be 35/36/37 respectively. Perfect for someone like Jake Gyllenhaal (though he is 38, I think he could pull off being a few years younger for the sake of the movie). Jake is merely an example, not my choice of casting (though I wouldn't mind).

If part 2 is set in 89 I think Oscar would be about 30/31 in part 3. I see some people on Facebook and stuff saying Michael Cera for Oscar. I like Cera but I don’t know if I see him as the son of the beautifully amazing sigourney Weaver haha

[Morsoth]

Very happy that we are getting a true sequel, but I'm so glad to be able to enjoy both the original movies and the remake! The remake was fun as hell when you don't think too much about it.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by postmodel

If part 2 is set in 89 I think Oscar would be about 30/31 in part 3. I see some people on Facebook and stuff saying Michael Cera for Oscar. I like Cera but I don’t know if I see him as the son of the beautifully amazing sigourney Weaver haha

Silly me! I confused the release year of the first movie, '84. Senior moment.

Eh.. yeah, maybe not Cera. I mean, I wouldn't mind him, but there must be a better option. Perhaps Nicholas Hoult? He was born in 1989.

https://www.thefamouspeople.com/born-1989.php

Famous people born in '89. It helped me pick someone.

[phobicsquirrel]

Originally Posted by oilers73

Yet another unnecessary reboot/remake/sequel. Crap like this is why I stopped reviewing films for a living.

Yeah I was hopeful before details of the 2016 came out then I was oh F no while getting blasted by people.

Now that Ramis is gone and murry hasn't been into this for so long I think any sequels is a waste at this point. A lot of hope around here about this and that's cool but there was with the last one as well. If it turns out great turn cool but I'm not sure it'll be even as good as p2. Mainly due to the lack of mostly poor sequels dealing with older films.

[phobicsquirrel]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, I think Reitman Jr can count on Aykroyd and Hudson to show up for the opening of an envelope, but he'd be better off writing Murray out of it from the start rather than hoping against hope that he'll deign to appear. Murray still needs to give his blessing, as GB lore tells it, but this franchise can and will continue without him, so unless they do something really outrageous re: disposing of Venkman then he needs to stop being such a tart about it.

Well why even bring back half the original cast then only to make them hardly important? Saw this with SW and they had almost all well at least the main people since lando was only in 5 and 6. I really don't think continuing a long gone series without the original actors will do well especially after 2016. I dunno I guess people today don't care about keeping the original people in films they started and only care about if its got a title belonging to a set of films.

[Himmel]

Ty Sheridan. Taron Eggerton