Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

[Dragon78]

Don't forget about the gremlins watching Disney's Snow White.

[Wildcat2000]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

Aykroyd is autustic but he’s also funny, so there’s no point in bringing them up.

I’m talking about the mentally deranged Ghostbusters fandom. People who say they want a serious Ghostbusters movie. People who say they watched the movies for years without recognizing the fact that they’re comedies. People who don’t even like the movies and see an animated version written for children as the darker, more adult version. When the 2016 movie came out the same week as Stranger Things I remember someone on the subreddit saying that the 2016 movie failed in capturing the tone of the originals (and it did) and that Stranger Things nailed it, which is absolutely insane.

Wading around in the fandom, you’ll find there are two kinds of Ghostbusters fan: the kind that wants to be funny, and the kind that wants to dress up as a Ghostbuster. There are people who think Rick Moranis’s speech about Gozer is hilarious, and there’s the kind that writes Wikipedia pages about what all that nonsense means. The people who made Ghostbusters go into one category, and this movie seems like it was made for the other kind of person.

Fact: people don’t like Ghostbusters because of the lore. Probably not even 1 person out of 100 could tell you who Ivo Shandor is, or even Gozer or Zuul or Vinz Clortho are. Ghostbusters was a phenomenal success because it is a funny movie, and the instant you set about making a more serious Ghostbusters movie you have failed miserably. To make a serious Ghostbusters movie is to make a movie that isn’t truly Ghostbusters.

You could not be more wrong with that bold part and your previous posts. I’ve heard this before and I’ve always thought it’s one of the most nonsensical arguments in all of movies...that it’s only good for side-reasons and it’s overall subject matter is pointless.

Ive only ever seen this argument made for GB too. It’s weird. You cannot conveniently decide what movies are and are not about.

Plenty of people SHOULD care about the paranormal/supernatural part. It’s the main reason GB became popular. Sure not everyone is heavily into it but it’s what makes it fun for all audiences. It’s why it’s a genre.

Giving it a comedy factor was a nice touch but Dan Aykroyd made it because he’s really into the paranormal/supernatural. So saying it should just be a comedy with the ghost stuff thrown in is huge disservice to those who created GB, the overall fandom and the paranormal/supernatural culture as a whole.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by Wildcat2000

Ive only ever seen this argument made for GB too. It’s weird. You cannot conveniently decide what movies are and are not about.

Where have you been? Literally every franchise has about a half dozen different perspectives on what it's about and why x or y must/must not happen or it will undermine the "lore".

I don't see anyone saying it should just be about comedy though.

[Foggy]

I feel like I’m on good authority to say that the majority of general audiences don’t care about the mythos behind the Ghostbusters film. I can say this because I have never had a conversation with anyone about the lore behind the Ghostbusters films or even reference the threats within the films. I always saw it as a fact that they made the supernatural world believable enough that it allows the comedy of these blue collared guys having to deal with it work.

[Wildcat2000]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Where have you been? Literally every franchise has about a half dozen different perspectives on what it's about and why x or y must/must not happen or it will undermine the "lore".

I don't see anyone saying it should just be about comedy though.

Well ya but I mean GB is the only one I’ve seen where some people entirely discredit the overall theme (in this case the ghost stuff) by saying none of it matters. It’s all just an excuse that nobody needs to care about. That’s exactly what the other person was saying.

That’s just really backwards logic. The ghost stuff is what drew me in 100%. If it was about something else I did not find interesting I probably would not have watched it.

Originally Posted by Foggy

I feel like I’m on good authority to say that the majority of general audiences don’t care about the mythos behind the Ghostbusters film. I can say this because I have never had a conversation with anyone about the lore behind the Ghostbusters films or even reference the threats within the films. I always saw it as a fact that they made the supernatural world believable enough that it allows the comedy of these blue collared guys having to deal with it work.

Sure general audiences are probably not into all the lore. Some are deeper into it than others.

The paranormal/supernatural part is still what hooked everyone though. Like you said they made it believable. They made it “cool”. People remember slimer, marshmallow man, proton packs and the whole “who you gonna call?” thing. The most casual fans has this cemented in their minds relating to ghosts and such.

[GuruAskew]

I obviously didn’t say that fans who care more about the nonsense than the comedy don’t exist. To the contrary: I said they do exist. Don’t twist my words: they exist, and they’re the problem. They’re a tiny, trivial, nearly invisible sliver of the fandom.

I am digging the “Second Citizen and SNL castmember wrote a super serious movie about catching ghosts in a super serious way as another super serious Belushi vehicle, but it was super serious, cross my heart” argument that has popped up a few times in the last couple pages. Arguing that Ghostbusters wasn’t conceived as a comedy is, itself, pure comedy.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by Wildcat2000

Well ya but I mean GB is the only one I’ve seen where some people entirely discredit the overall theme (in this case the ghost stuff) by saying none of it matters. It’s all just an excuse that nobody needs to care about. That’s exactly what the other person was saying.

That’s just really backwards logic. The ghost stuff is what drew me in 100%. If it was about something else I did not find interesting I probably would not have watched it.Sure general audiences are probably not into all the lore. Some are deeper into it than others.

The paranormal/supernatural part is still what hooked everyone though. Like you said they made it believable. They made it “cool”. People remember slimer, marshmallow man, proton packs and the whole “who you gonna call?” thing. The most casual fans has this cemented in their minds relating to ghosts and such.

Not for me. The pretense that there's something more than wishfully thought up substance in the technobabble regarding ghosts is the peculiar appeal of Ghostbusters. But its endurance as a classic and ever popular movie was due to different things clashing with those ideas. There's nothing funny about supernatural lore whatsoever.

"Lore" is what people use to justify activities that go beyond just enjoying what made the movie a hit at the time. Having all the tie-ins, comics, figures etc that serve to populate a "universe". Over time, people start to expect their investment in these ancillaries to be reflected in the way future movies are made. But that's not what made the movie good in the first place.

[postmodel]

First up, if that leak is true:

[Show spoiler]we saw the whole descendant of Shandor thing in the game already, but I'm fine with it. I wonder what Gozer will look like since I believe Slavitza Jovan recently stated she was never contacted about Afterlife, unless she's remaining hush hush about it. Then again he can be whatever he wants to be.

The comedy of Ghostbusters isn't really akin to modern day comedy...just look at all the comedies of recent that go for big laughs and favor the raunchier side of things. However, Murray offers such a dry wit at points in the original that I wonder if Rudd is supposed to do the same but it doesn't land as well. Plus, there was a natural flow to the humor, even the set ups for lines like "Yes, it's true this man has no dick" had a natural flow. But that comes down to the talent and kinship of the original actors. They all knew each other, came up in comedy together, had there own personal history. That can only help.

[GuruAskew]

Originally Posted by Wildcat2000

You could not be more wrong with that bold part and your previous posts. I’ve heard this before and I’ve always thought it’s one of the most nonsensical arguments in all of movies...that it’s only good for side-reasons and it’s overall subject matter is pointless.

Ive only ever seen this argument made for GB too. It’s weird. You cannot conveniently decide what movies are and are not about.

Plenty of people SHOULD care about the paranormal/supernatural part. It’s the main reason GB became popular. Sure not everyone is heavily into it but it’s what makes it fun for all audiences. It’s why it’s a genre.

Giving it a comedy factor was a nice touch but Dan Aykroyd made it because he’s really into the paranormal/supernatural. So saying it should just be a comedy with the ghost stuff thrown in is huge disservice to those who created GB, the overall fandom and the paranormal/supernatural culture as a whole.

How would you describe the movies and TV shows made by the people who made Ghostbusters before and after Ghostbusters?

Context is key. Ghostbusters wasn’t made by Spielberg or Lucas. It was made by people who made Stripes and Caddyshack and The Blues Brothers and Animal House and Vacation and Meatballs.

You look at that stuff, and the stuff that came after (some great like Groundhog Day, some terrible like Blues Brothers 2000 and Nothing but Trouble) and Ghostbusters is not an aberration, Ghostbusters is an epitome. You can plug your talent into something with a down-to-earth premise like Stripes and you can plug them into a high-concept special effects extravaganza. You’re certainly entitled to argue that Ghostbusters and Stripes aren’t overwhelmingly similar, or that Ghostbusters doesn’t belong in the comedy section etc. but your uphill battle is gonna be being convincing, because you haven’t been, and things like common sense aren’t on your side.

Around the time the sequel came out Nick at Nite started airing an hour that was one half 70s SNL and one half SCTV. That was my big comedic awakening. I was a kid with a bunch of Real Ghostbusters toys and that’s what got me started watching things like Animal House and Caddyshack. It’s honestly a sad thing that people don’t recognize Ghostbusters for what it is. Obviously people are free to enjoy the things they enjoy for whatever reason they want, but if you fast forward trough The French Connection to get to the car chase then don’t understand the movie. If you watch Ghostbusters and you don’t think it’s funny and you wish someone would make a serious movie about people catching ghosts with laser beams then you’re not really on board with the movie the people made.

They made an ensemble comedy with a lot of improv, whether you like it or not. That’s what a Ghostbusters is.

[Wildcat2000]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Not for me. The pretense that there's something more than wishfully thought up substance in the technobabble regarding ghosts is the peculiar appeal of Ghostbusters. But its endurance as a classic and ever popular movie was due to different things clashing with those ideas. There's nothing funny about supernatural lore whatsoever.

"Lore" is what people use to justify activities that go beyond just enjoying what made the movie a hit at the time. Having all the tie-ins, comics, figures etc that serve to populate a "universe". Over time, people start to expect their investment in these ancillaries to be reflected in the way future movies are made. But that's not what made the movie good in the first place.

I understand what you’re saying. I did not mean people got sucked up into the supernatural culture because of GB. I meant it’s what made audiences notice and found it entertaining. Some do not even believe in the supernatural but enjoy horror movies and such. It’s an idea that people just find fun.

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

How would you describe the movies and TV shows made by the people who made Ghostbusters before and after Ghostbusters?

Context is key. Ghostbusters wasn’t made by Spielberg or Lucas. It was made by people who made Stripes and Caddyshack and The Blues Brothers and Animal House and Vacation and Meatballs.

You look at that stuff, and the stuff that came after (some great like Groundhog Day, some terrible like Blues Brothers 2000 and Nothing but Trouble) and Ghostbusters is not an aberration, Ghostbusters is an epitome. You can plug your talent into something with a down-to-earth premise like Stripes and you can plug them into a high-concept special effects extravaganza. You’re certainly entitled to argue that Ghostbusters and Stripes aren’t overwhelmingly similar, or that Ghostbusters doesn’t belong in the comedy section etc. but your uphill battle is gonna be being convincing, because you haven’t been, and things like common sense aren’t on your side.

Around the time the sequel came out Nick at Nite started airing an hour that was one half 70s SNL and one half SCTV. That was my big comedic awakening. I was a kid with a bunch of Real Ghostbusters toys and that’s what got me started watching things like Animal House and Caddyshack. It’s honestly a sad thing that people don’t recognize Ghostbusters for what it is. Obviously people are free to enjoy the things they enjoy for whatever reason they want, but if you fast forward trough The French Connection to get to the car chase then don’t understand the movie. If you watch Ghostbusters and you don’t think it’s funny and you wish someone would make a serious movie about people catching ghosts with laser beams then you’re not really on board with the movie the people made.

They made an ensemble comedy with a lot of improv, whether you like it or not. That’s what a Ghostbusters is.

So everyone behind ghostbusters chose to make a movie based on the supernatural just for laughs?

Of course being part comedy is also part of the appeal. Because it makes for some pretty funny and unique situations and character moments. Nobody disagrees with that. You’re arguing (to be fair like I said this is not the first time I’ve seen this argument. Even saw it on IMDb) but you’re arguing the supernatural theme is pointless and was just an excuse to make another movie in the light of those other comedies. That is the issue.

Aside from wanting to do another movie they actually took the time to rework Dan’s original concept and bring it to life. So they definitely thought it was worthwhile. Especially Dan Aykroyd. We know for certain he’s the supernatural enthusiast here.

You say people who like the ghost stuff are not “on board” with the creators but but you’re literally trying to decide for him why he chose that theme. Plus tell those who like the theme they’re watching it the wrong way.

[joshsquash729]

The supernatural part is KEY, I'd say. Even if you got the exact cast together, if you made a movie about, say, waiting tables, or a sports league, or just reuse the set and vehicle to make a straight up firefighting movie, I'd argue it wouldn't have the same effect or appeal. It was a fresh take on something that, even then, was somewhat familiar. There hadn't been many funny movies about ghosts, especially capturing them, which was a fairly unique premise. It took something that many people are afraid of, and made it fun and easy to understand.

Sure, you'd have your fans of each individual actor- some people would watch Bill Murray do anything, but the appeal to many was that they'd get to see Bill Murray hunting ghosts. Comedy is subjective, as is horror. What makes Ghostbusters work is that, comedy aside, it's also just a fun story about a ghost hunting business. It works because it works on both levels- yes, it has its funny moments, but even if the dry 80's humor isn't your cup of tea, it still works as a lighthearted supernatural film. Comedians know their material isn't for everyone, and when making a movie, they have to know that some people just won't find their jokes funny. Ghostbusters has the safety net of also having interesting supernatural elements.

So is it a comedy? Yes. But is it JUST a comedy? No, and if all your movie has going for it are jokes, even memorable ones, then it's going to lose its appeal after a while. Ghostbusters also had the likeable characters, interesting science, and the blend of spooky and funny. Slimer, for instance- he's a goofy ghost, but he works and appeals to audiences, especially kids, because he IS a ghost. If he was just some fat dude, or a talking cat, or whatever, he wouldn't hit the same. People like the supernatural elements of it- the library ghost, terror dogs, etc., because those who are scared by it are immediately given the reprieve of a laugh. So to say the supernatural element isn't important is just silly to me. Dan Aykroyd took something that he was passionate about (but many aren't)- ghosts- and made it appealing by disguising it as a comedy.

That said, even if the new film does decide to lean a little more into the supernatural than the comedy, why is that a bad thing? Are franchises not allowed to evolve and change and try new things? Fans complain when they become too predictable and unchanging, but they also complain when they try new things. So what's the solution? At least the supernatural is something established in the context of the film. If they just started lassoing horses or fighting crime, that might be one thing, but why is leaning a bit more to the other side to keep things fresh considered a bad thing?

[Himmel]

Pink lightning hits Lady Liberty.. Getting G2 vibes

http://youtube.com/watch?v=O-9A5NKRRaI

[joshsquash729]

The only thing that could make 2020 worse would be if ghosts and possessed monuments started roaming the streets.

[UniSol GR77]

I have a simple question to ask to the Ghostbusters fans and movie buffs of this forum:

Is it so hard to write and film a Ghostbusters movie (sequel or remake) featuring adult male Ghostbusters starring in a half comedy, half sci-fi horror story?

[MomentsAgo]

Originally Posted by UniSol GR77

I have a simple question to ask to the Ghostbusters fans and movie buffs of this forum:

Is it so hard to write and film a Ghostbusters movie (sequel or remake) featuring adult male Ghostbusters starring in a half comedy, half sci-fi horror story?

[kylor]

Originally Posted by UniSol GR77

I have a simple question to ask to the Ghostbusters fans and movie buffs of this forum:

Is it so hard to write and film a Ghostbusters movie (sequel or remake) featuring adult male Ghostbusters starring in a half comedy, half sci-fi horror story?

[CrazyBlu-RayFan]

Originally Posted by UniSol GR77

I have a simple question to ask to the Ghostbusters fans and movie buffs of this forum:

Is it so hard to write and film a Ghostbusters movie (sequel or remake) featuring adult male Ghostbusters starring in a half comedy, half sci-fi horror story?

It's called the 2009 Ghostbusters video game, that's the closest you're going to get, this one coming soon will be about handing the torch down to the new generation from the remaining original Busters, which is needed as everyone is too old now. By the way, I hated the 2016 movie for being a bad movie, not because it had women.

[UniSol GR77]

Originally Posted by CrazyBlu-RayFan

this one coming soon will be about handing the torch down to the new generation from the remaining original Busters.

It's okay... successors... but why are they children? It's not Goonies.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by CrazyBlu-RayFan

It's called the 2009 Ghostbusters video game, that's the closest you're going to get, this one coming soon will be about handing the torch down to the new generation from the remaining original Busters, which is needed as everyone is too old now. By the way, I hated the 2016 movie for being a bad movie, not because it had women.

As did like everyone else, including most women. The movie sucked. Period.

I cant see getting into any Ghostbuster film at this point. The first is a classic for sure but thats about it. Just leave it be.

[postmodel]

As a grown adult who enjoys all sorts of films and considers Ghostbusters to honestly be one of the greatest films ever made...well I simply can’t wait.