Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

[kylor]

Originally Posted by postmodel

Yeah, I know haha. Just trying not to get my hopes up just in case!. I saw a post on a ghostbusters Facebook group saying Hudson’s quote was from an event before the announcement of the new movie and the daily mail UK is just a “gossip mag that takes quotes from other places.” But it’s all good. The more GB the better I say!

Back to something I posted earlier though...I get the use of Ecto 1 in the teaser, but I wonder if Ecto 1A will be acknowledged or forgotten? I just hope they don’t pretend it never existed haha.

That was also on my mind, considering that the Ecto-1 from Ghostbusters I is transformed into Ecto-1A in Ghostbusters II (as they are the same vehicle as per the wiki says). The Ecto-1A has the license plate on the far left-side of the rear bumper, not the center. Of course, it's only a teaser trailer so that particular iteration of the car may not be the same one in the final movie (yellow centered license plate). If it is, then I fear they could be retconning Ghostbusters II, or perhaps there's an in-universe explanation as to why the license plate has gone back to the center (such as the bumper falling off over the years and had to be replaced, or it is simply a second vehicle). I really hope that the latter two are true.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by kylor

That was also on my mind, considering that the Ecto-1 from Ghostbusters I is transformed into Ecto-1A in Ghostbusters II (as they are the same vehicle as per the wiki says). The Ecto-1A has the license plate on the far left-side of the rear bumper, not the center. Of course, it's only a teaser trailer so that particular iteration of the car may not be the same one in the final movie (yellow centered license plate). If it is, then I fear they could be retconning Ghostbusters II, or perhaps there's an in-universe explanation as to why the license plate has gone back to the center (such as the bumper falling off over the years and had to be replaced, or it is simply a second vehicle). I really hope that the latter two are true.

Nobody cares where the license plate is, and it doesn't need an "explanation" if it's moved.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by kylor

That was also on my mind, considering that the Ecto-1 from Ghostbusters I is transformed into Ecto-1A in Ghostbusters II (as they are the same vehicle as per the wiki says). The Ecto-1A has the license plate on the far left-side of the rear bumper, not the center. Of course, it's only a teaser trailer so that particular iteration of the car may not be the same one in the final movie (yellow centered license plate). If it is, then I fear they could be retconning Ghostbusters II, or perhaps there's an in-universe explanation as to why the license plate has gone back to the center (such as the bumper falling off over the years and had to be replaced, or it is simply a second vehicle). I really hope that the latter two are true.

With regard to this, I don't get why you are overly concerned about the positioning of the license plate above all else when the more substantial difference is the car having the original logo instead of the one from GBII, and also seems to be missing the other added details that weren't on the car in the first movie.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Nobody cares where the license plate is, and it doesn't need an "explanation" if it's moved.

I hope you realize how you come across. I was discussing what another user said, and building on it. I wasn't even talking to you so.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

With regard to this, I don't get why you are overly concerned about the positioning of the license plate above all else when the more substantial difference is the car having the original logo instead of the one from GBII, and also seems to be missing the other added details that weren't on the car in the first movie.

Yes, the logo is a thing I noticed as well, but didn't mention it. This also makes me think that this movie may (or may not!) ignore the events of GBII (this being entirely dependent on the car shown in the trailer being the exact same one that will be shown in the final movie, details and all). I just wonder if the movie does ignore GBII, then why? (however unlikely it may be).

[postmodel]

Originally Posted by kylor

Yes, the logo is a thing I noticed as well, but didn't mention it. This also makes me think that this movie may (or may not!) ignore the events of GBII (this being entirely dependent on the car shown in the trailer being the exact same one that will be shown in the final movie, details and all). I just wonder if the movie does ignore GBII, then why? (however unlikely it may be).

Or maybe the OG busters revamped the Ecto 1A (similar to the video game right?). And this one in the teaser was built buy a fanatic.

Or they simply say “we changed it back cause the 1A was too flashy” or something.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by postmodel

Or maybe the OG busters revamped the Ecto 1A (similar to the video game right?). And this one in the teaser was built buy a fanatic.

Or they simply say “we changed it back cause the 1A was too flashy” or something.

That idea about revamping sounds good to me! And I do love the video game, truly a shame it's no longer canon but it's still awesome in it's own right.

I just had an interesting thought based around your "fanatic" mention, too. I had never thought about it before, but what if there was a rival "Ghostbusters" type group/company that maybe stole all of the Ghostbusters' potential customers by building their own sophisticated equipment based on the equipment shown/seen on the T.V. whenever the Ghostbusters were on? A bit like reverse engineering.

[jess1581]

They better not retcon GB2, it was certainly good enough to be canon.

[LordCrumb]

I still like the older idea that Ghosts have become so common and frequent that people have got used to them and it's just a part of daily life.

Sitting next to a ghost on the bus to work, ghost causing a traffic jam etc etc.. the Ghostbusters are just not needed anymore, until a real threat emerges.

[captveg]

Edit - wrong thread.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by LordCrumb

I still like the older idea that Ghosts have become so common and frequent that people have got used to them and it's just a part of daily life.

Sitting next to a ghost on the bus to work, ghost causing a traffic jam etc etc.. the Ghostbusters are just not needed anymore, until a real threat emerges.

I could see how that idea came about. After all, those guys seemed pretty chill when the Titanic arrived. The mayor was apparently chilling spending the night talking to a dead guy too. Even Rick's character was chill with Slimer driving a bus. Oh and that "jogging" ghost never really bothered anybody.

There's definitely "good" ghosts, then "bad" ghosts, then there's straight up ghost demons, and of course, "Gods" planning their mighty return to Earth.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by captveg

This thread is about to get some attention with the new trailer around the corner.

What new trailer? Do you have a source?

[kylor]

Practical magic. For the teaser, "mybrokenglasses" built a stencil from the original GB84 lettering in the Columbia Pictures archive, then shot it practically with smoke and light!



https://www.instagram.com/p/Bsy2ZMuH...=1rgepnbubxtao

Not gonna lie that dedication is impressive.

[Creed]

Very solid work, indeed.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by kylor

What new trailer? Do you have a source?

Wrong thread. Sorry.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by captveg

Wrong thread. Sorry.

Man you got my heart pumping. Ah well, it happens no problemo.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by kylor

Man you got my heart pumping. Ah well, it happens no problemo.

It's frankly surprising they had the teaser considering the film hasn't been shot yet.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by captveg

It's frankly surprising they had the teaser considering the film hasn't been shot yet.

Yeah, I figured they might've done a second tease but alas I will have to wait.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by captveg

It's frankly surprising they had the teaser considering the film hasn't been shot yet.

Because nobody takes Dan's comments seriously anymore.

[CyberpunkCentral]

'Ghostbusters': Why Ignore the All-Female Reboot?

The new Jason Reitman project will bypass the 2016 film, a move that is sparking debate.
Less than three years after Sony's Ghostbusters reboot battled online trolls and fizzled at the box office, Tuesday's news that the property is coming back quickly sparked conversations among fans about nostalgia, toxic fandom and legacy.

Jason Reitman, son of original Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman, will helm a continuation of the series that ignores Paul Feig's female-led reboot, which starred Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon. The new film, sources say, will focus on four teens — two boys and two girls — and continue the story of 1984's Ghostbusters and the 1989 sequel.

Ignoring the 2016 film is a missed opportunity, Hannah Woodhead argues in a piece she wrote for the London-based film magazine Little White Lies titled "An Open Letter to Jason Reitman." She writes that while 2016's Ghostbusters wasn't an original idea, the all-female team pushed the franchise forward in an important way that may be lost in the new version.

“I think we suffer from this collective sense of nostalgia in film, where we're always looking to the past rather than the future,” she tells The Hollywood Reporter. “The past is safe. The past is easy.”

1984's Ghostbusters is widely considered a classic, and while the 1989 follow-up was less well-received, it does have its fans. Decades later, Feig's all-female 2016 Ghostbusters received a fresh 74 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, higher than Ghostbusters II. In addition to misogynistic trolling online, Jones faced racist attacks that caused her to leave Twitter for a period of time.

"I think it's a really entertaining movie that was doomed simply because it wasn't the film a certain very loud percentage of the audience wanted,” says Drew McWeeny, co-creator of the 80s All Over podcast and longtime film critic.

McWeeny understands criticisms of Reitman taking the reins for the new installment, but believes he is well-suited for the director's chair.

“While I get why some people might be annoyed, I met Jason Reitman for the first time in 1990, when he was still ‘just Ivan's kid,’ and at that point, he was movie-crazy and also knew his dad's work intimately," says McWeeny. "It makes sense that he'd want to do that, and I suspect he'll do a good job with it.”

Cracked contributor Chris Sutcliffe was a fan of Feig’s film and grew up with Ghostbusters. He's more concerned about the direction of the new film under Reitman.

“What frustrates me about this new film, and I'm very aware that we've had very little news, is how keen they are to distance themselves from the 2016 film," says Sutcliffe. "Not only will it feel like a victory to all the wrong people, but it just feels like a creative step backwards.”

After the announcement, Sutcliffe took to Twitter to pose that this new Ghostbusters is missing an opportunity to converge universes a la Sony's Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, which combined multiple spider-people into one story.

“[Spider-Verse] tells a new story with a diverse cast while still acknowledging the past,” Sutcliffe says. “You could easily take the ball from Feig's story to explore generation gaps, or fatherhood, or the cyclical nature of disasters. You could have four of the funniest actresses right now working with the retired originals. There are a hundred stories you could tell that wouldn't send the message to the little girls that liked the 2016 version that they've had their turn.”

Sutcliffe does acknowledge the possibilities of the new film, which as of yet does not have original stars such as Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd confirmed to return, though it's a possibility.

“There is every chance that we're going to still get a great film,” says Sutcliffe. “Maybe it will further open up the franchise. Maybe they've been lying and I'll get the big crossover event all along.”

McWeeny is hopeful the new film is not actually writing off the 2016 reboot. He wonders if there’s a possibility that something larger is going on that could involve the leading ladies of Feig's film. “The first thing I heard when they set up shop to get this go-round of ghostbustin' off the ground, before Feig came onboard even, was that they had a master plan.”

He cites the comic book runs of Ghostbusters at IDW Publishing and how those “lean heavily on the idea that all of the Ghostbusters iterations are pocket universes, something that they came up with before Spider-Verse hit theaters.”

As Woodhead points out, an animated Ghostbusters movie Sony is developing separately could be that franchise's answer to Spider-Verse.

The trolling the Ghostbusters reboot film encountered continued something seen before, such as when actor John Boyega was the target of racist comments following the Star Wars: The Force Awakens trailer in 2014. And it would be seen again when Star Wars: The Last Jedi's Kelly Marie Tran felt forced to leave social media.

Woodhead thinks that the new Stars Wars films prove that movies like Ghostbusters can succeed, as long as they manage to blend nostalgia and newness in a smart way. And without acknowledging the 2016 movie, you're ignoring some of that nostalgia.

“The reason the new Star Wars films have worked is because they retained the spirit of the original films while really pushing forward, and found the right cast for the job,” Woodhead says. “Even then, we see the same misogyny and racism directed at the cast of those films as we saw directed at Feig's Ghostbusters. There's an element of gatekeeperism where fans of the original want things to be how they were in the good old days, which ties into this nostalgia, but it's 2019, and we're too far gone to make the same films over and over.”
Reitman's new Ghostbusters movie is expected for summer 2020.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...reboot-1177318