User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

Ghostbusters: Afterlife


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Ghostbusters: Afterlife
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next Thread Tools
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tidewater Virginia
 
2019-12-09, 13:27

The trailer is out for this now and I have to say I'm pretty excited about seeing this one. It is a cool way to continue the story but be different at the same time.

Seeing the original car (at least replica) in the trailer is really amazing. I'm hoping they go into the story of the original crew a little as to why all their stuff is at the farm.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
kscherer
The Ban Hammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2019-12-09, 13:28

Just watched the trailer. Looks like fun!
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2019-12-09, 13:45

Now that is a novel, unique take on an existing, already-done property. Nobody asked for that lousy, completely unfunny thing a few years ago with McCarthy, Wiig, etc. because it was just a lazy remake of better-done movies everyone's already seen (are you listening, Disney/Lucasfilm?)

But this looks kinda neat. It's attention-getting, at the very least.

You can honor/acknowledge the past - the gear, clothing, vehicle - without a beat-by-beat "modernized" remake. It can be a "modernized" completely new take on something people love and remember. You branch off from that, but put it in such a different time and setting that it can't help but seem a little novel and fresh.

Had they done this in 2016 instead of what they did, it might've made all the difference in the world. I don't know what they were going for in 2016 (actually I do, and it failed miserably, as such things - forced, unasked-for remakes with no charm/spark of the original - often do).

But this looks like a bit more "scares/thrills" than outright comedy, and that's interesting.

You change up the location/setting, a new cast that seems halfway believable/interesting, you touch on the past, but you don't wallow in it, etc.

Again, are you listening, Disney/Lucasfilm?

PS - That Finn Wolfhard dude is gunning to be the Goldblum of his generation, appearing in all the genre hits. He's already big from Stranger Things and the It movies, and now this. Maybe he'll wind up in a future Star Wars project?
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tidewater Virginia
 
2019-12-09, 15:36

Yeah, you articulated well why I think this is a much better follow up to the original Ghostbusters crew. I haven't bothered to watch the 2016 version because I have other things on my list ahead of it.... you know like long walks off of short piers, skydiving without a parachute, etc.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
kscherer
The Ban Hammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2019-12-10, 00:03

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
Had they done this in 2016 instead of what they did, it might've made all the difference in the world. I don't know what they were going for in 2016 (actually I do, and it failed miserably, as such things - forced, unasked-for remakes with no charm/spark of the original - often do).
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle View Post
I haven't bothered to watch the 2016 version because I have other things on my list ahead of it.... you know like long walks off of short piers, skydiving without a parachute, etc.
They should have called that one Wokebusters.

If there's something strange … in your neighborhood
Who ya gonna call? (Wokebusters!)






I really enjoyed the trailer and think it has tremendous potential. Looks a bit more scarry-ish, and maybe some solid monsters chucked in. Also, word on the street is that a bunuch of the cast from 1 nd 2 will make cameo appearances, and the writers (I think both Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd are involved) got around Harold Ramis' death by making him the dead grandfather from the new movie, which I think is very clever. I may be looking forward to this more than that other movie we've been talking about.

Boise State! … Boise State! … Boise State!
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tidewater Virginia
 
2019-12-10, 00:11

Yeah, Spengler being the grandfather makes total sense.

I don't think I'll mind the other three having some connection in the movie. They aren't trying to make it look like this movie happened immediately following the events of the first (two). However, if they don't do it right it will just seem like a money grab on nostalgia.

Thankfully, the trailer makes it seem anything but that. I'm pretty excited to see this and way more excited to see this over IX.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2019-12-10, 00:23

That’s actually a neat idea, if the place was Ramis’ farm. Makes sense he’d wind up with all the gear and that’s a nice way to include him while acknowledging the real-life reason why his character wouldn’t be in the movie.
  quote
drewprops
Magnificent Basturd™
sagacious-d
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2019-12-10, 14:31

I seem to be in the minority of people who didn't love the vibe of the new Ghostbusters movie trailer. A Ghostbusters-skinned version of Stranger Things seems lazy, almost antithetical to the spirit of the franchise. In a discussion on a friend's wall I described the original film as being rather campy. The *setup* wasn't necessarily camp, but the gonzo performances of Akroyd and Murray turned it into their very own special form of camp, ensuring that the tone of the original hit film would be a difficult formula to recapture. This isn't to discount the script, or the direction and editing and special effects. The second film with the same cast was less successful than the original, and every subsequent attempt has fallen farther afield, though I think the energy of the recent version with a largely female cast was a genuine attempt to synthesize the spirit of the original. However it turns out, I sure hope this new movie proves me wrong - because that would be fun. And we could sure use some fun these days.


...
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2019-12-10, 14:44

Yeah, good points. But, honestly, I’m just pleasantly surprised they went for something different after three movies (of decreasing quality). The lazy, expected thing, IMO, would’ve been to have yet another group of four people wearing jumpsuits in NYC.

But yeah, the young cast in a small-town setting can’t help, at this point, to draw Stranger Things (or even It) comparisons. Especially when they go and cast the most recognizable face from both properties! Dude might want to keep tabs on the overexposure thing and not flame out too early.

The originals were mostly comedy with the supernatural/“boo!” sprinkled on top. The trailer kinda makes it look like they may be going for the reverse (creepy/thriller with comedy touches...like, well the two things listed above).

In any case, I hold out hope for a Zak Bagans cameo where he gets eaten by monsters. That’s totally worth $9.
  quote
kscherer
The Ban Hammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2019-12-10, 19:31

According to the scuttlebutt, Ghostbusters: Afterlife takes place just after the events of Ghostbusters II, so it is a continuation of the series, but from a different set of characters and possibly through the advisement of some of the original people. In other words, the original characters will be involved in the steering of events in some form or another.

Boise State! … Boise State! … Boise State!
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2019-12-10, 20:34

Well, looking at the cast listing on IMDb...

Spoiler (click to toggle):
...of the seven main cast members from the original, all but Harold Ramis and Rick Moranis are involved. The three remaining busters, plus Annie Potts and Sigourney Weaver.

I assume these are accurate/confirmed and aren’t a surprise/spoiler if they’re so prominently listed. But, as a courtesy, I’ll spoiler tag the info.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2019-12-11, 06:10

The RedLetterMedia guys have released a video where the discuss this trailer, the property overall, etc.

Funny/interesting how they talk about many of the exact things we’ve hit on here (the 2016 release, Finn Wolfhard, the Stranger Things vibe, the overall approach they seem to be going for, nostalgia/fan-service, etc.). Just wish it had been Jay and Mike; I can do without that Rich guy and his hyena-on-PCP “laugh”, (which, thankfully, he mostly keeps in check here).

But worth a look if you found the trailer interesting and/or are participating in this thread.
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2019-12-12, 23:15

Meanwhile, in the top shelf of my costume closet…



Shhh, baby... Soon! Soon... After a mere 11 years of Halloweens come and gone, your time to shine will be here again soon...



I think I'll need to finally make the matching ghost trap as well.

I'm one of the few weirdos on the planet who hasn't watched Stranger Things. Yeah, yeah, I know. I've had Netflix for all these years but just haven't gotten into it. I do get that this trailer totally rips off the feel of that show, but that doesn't bother me. At least I'm thrilled that it's a different and so far seemingly better take on the franchise than the collective shit-stain that was the 2016 adaptation (which still feels like just yesterday). The original movie was such a magical "lightning in a bottle" that I'm glad they aren't trying to recreate it. I don't think anyone could fill the shoes of delivering such clever, dry humor as our boys Ramis and Murray without running the risk of seeming too derivative or a pale imitation (again, cue the 2016 references).

The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2019-12-12, 23:39

Exactly. It’s foolish to try and replicate things that were done right, and so well, the first time around, especially if a lot of it was just chemistry, luck, timing, intangibles, lightning-in-a-bottle, etc. You can never recreate those kinds of things, so you’re much better off trying something new and fresh. If it fails, at least it goes down trying. And it may leave a better mark, long term, than just another tiresome rehash that everyone knows isn’t gonna fly.

Even if this new one comes up short, it’ll probably age better than the 2016 outing.

Last edited by pscates2.0 : 2019-12-13 at 00:06.
  quote
kscherer
The Ban Hammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2019-12-13, 00:58

I am so trying to resist the jabs I could take at that 2016 fiasco.

*whistles and walks away.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2019-12-14, 15:48

Their biggest misstep was simply hiring four people, regardless of what's between their legs, who aren't particularly funny. That often presents a bit of an issue when you're trying to make a comedy.

There's no reason an "all female" Ghostbusters movie can't work/be funny. It just wasn't going to be that particular effort. Because it wasn't funny at any level. And, deep down, even those who feel they have to pretend otherwise know this. It isn't some "unappreciated gem" or "ahead-of-its-time cult classic" making the rounds, three years later, at festivals or gatherings for various organizations. Nobody gives a shit about it, even those who wouldn't shut up about it on Twitter throughout 2016.

Anatomically speaking, it was the absence of a funny bone - vs. the presence of a uterus - that caused the 2016 movie to suck. And if it makes anyone feel better, had it starred Adam Sandler, Dax Shepard, Carrot Top and Kevin Hart, guess what? That would've sucked too, I assure you. No amount of penis-ry in the world could've made that a success, using the same script/plot. So let's knock it off with all that other stuff that supposedly explained/accounted for its failure. It doesn't fly. Bad movies get greenlit/made/released all the time - hundreds a year - and it doesn't mean anything more than "it was just a bad movie, and everyone can move on with your lives now."

Making a comedy hinging on unfunny people is quite the dice-roll, as it turns out. Industry types and cultural gatekeepers might feel the need to call it "game-changing" and a "brave risk", but I think most would simply view it as a "pointless, unasked-for waste of everyone's time and money" because it failed at the one thing a comedy can't fail at. It's really no more complicated than that.

Last edited by pscates2.0 : 2019-12-14 at 16:14.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tidewater Virginia
 
2019-12-14, 15:52

I don't think it was because it was all women, but the fact that is was a rip off that played to be politically correct in today's world rather than be "another funny take". The fact that it was working so hard to be PC is what made it a non-starter for me. I'm shocked it even made it to the box office at all really. Other than the drive for Hollywood to push the PC angle.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
drewprops
Magnificent Basturd™
sagacious-d
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2019-12-14, 23:38

I haven't seen the 2016 version yet, but if those ladies nailed it I am coming back here and nailing your hides to the digital wall over there beside our digital fireplace.




...

Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon.
Captain Drew on Twitter
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2019-12-15, 00:04

They didn't nail anything...it's not a funny movie. Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones are beyond obnoxious (and I've never seen either of them be funny in anything). Kate McKinnon just reminds me of Jimmy Fallon more often than not (not a compliment), and Kristin Wiig, who's made me laugh many times over the years, doesn't even come across well here.

And they didn't help themselves by attempting a direct lift of the originals, which, naturally, is going to invite comparisons and highlight just how much they come up short. Throwing four people (even matching the racial makeup of the original) into jumpsuits, setting it in NYC and giving them a similar car was the worst route they could've gone.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2019-12-15, 10:14

Okay, here we go...a nice breakdown between the same scene as it happened in 1984 and 2016, illustrating the exact things we’ve talked about above (unfunny, point-missing, trying-too-hard, obnoxious performances, treating the audience as stupid children, trying to “improve” in something handled far better decades earlier, the “tell, don’t show” lack of economy, etc.

Scene comparison between 1984 and 2016.

And, most importantly, none of the criticism or analysis hinges on gender. It isn’t some foaming-at-the-mouth dipshit or “woman-hater” neckbeard YouTuber, squawking about “women ghostbusters” as any sort of negative.

This video, like my points above, talks only about the writing, dialogue, acting and general unfunny, needlessly heavy-handed and obnoxious approach. And bear in mind, this is just one scene...the guy could, if he wanted, do another 5-8 videos like this, easily. The differences are that stark, throughout.

The movie plays like a dumb, Thursday night ABC sitcom, wallowing in its obnoxious, dumbed-down tone from the opening frames to its closing credits.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tidewater Virginia
 
2019-12-16, 10:10

That video does an amazing job explaining the differences. Sure it is one scene, but it really does fit all scenes from what I've heard/read.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2019-12-16, 11:52

It does. I eventually got around to watching it, realizing something so maligned and unsuccessful must have some sort of “how not to go about a project” value that I’d enjoy (I’ll watch just about anything if I can attach a reason to it, good or bad).

“The more you know”, right? But sometimes you just have to see the train careen off the rails for yourself.

“Oh...hmmm.”

It was a slog. More than any other genre, watching anything billed as a comedy that simply isn’t funny is a rough go. They can make 90 minutes feel like 4-5 hours. I’ve never been so happy to see end credits appear.
  quote
kscherer
The Ban Hammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2019-12-16, 12:26

"They got it right the first time."

Yeah.

I cannot come up with anything positive to say, so I'll leave it alone.



In other news, I heard that Ghostbusters: Afterlife is coming out.

Boise State! … Boise State! … Boise State!
  quote
kscherer
The Ban Hammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2019-12-16, 13:00

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad View Post
Meanwhile, in the top shelf of my costume closet…



Yikes! Is that the missing head of John Lennon in your closet? You sadistic fanboy!
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2019-12-16, 22:45

I really didn't think it warranted its own separate thread, so since we're talking about modern, three-decades-after-the-fact sequels to 80's movies here already, there was a new, second trailer to Top Gun: Maverick released today. If a mod thinks this movie needs a dedicated thread, knock yourselves out!

Confession...I saw the original one only once in the theater, upon initial release in 1986, and didn't like it at all. I just thought nearly every character in it was an unlikable, off-putting prick. Hard to root/pull for people you can't imagine having a cookout or a beer with. For me, anyway. So I saw it that one time, 33+ years ago, and that was it.

All that aside, I loved all the flying footage/sequences. And this movie looks even better on that front. I'm sure it'll be a fun thing to watch on the big screen! Not sure if I'll see it, but you never know. $10 in my pocket on a rainy Saturday with nothing else to do has lured me to the multiplex quite a few times over the years.

Oh, and Tom Cruise never ages. Dude is a vampire!
  quote
kscherer
The Ban Hammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2019-12-17, 00:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
If a mod thinks this movie needs a dedicated thread, knock yourselves out!
I'll let it stand. It's not like these things never get sidetracked.



I'm looking forward to it. I loved the original, and not for the characters. I loved it for the F-14 Tomcat. That was my favorite plane growing up. My dad was a pilot for 50+ years (single engine Cessna 180, 210, that sort of thing). I wanted to be a fighter pilot and came this close to joining the Navy. Got all the way to the final signature, even. The dude at the recruiting office told me I would be in "fighter school" right after boot camp. Got home and told my pilot dad and he practically laughed at me. I wore coke-bottle eyeglasses and had crappy grades and oh, by the way you have to go to college to be an officer, and you have to be an officer to fly. I thought my dad was trying to hold me back and waltzed into that recruiting office with my head held high and bought everything that recruiter said. He even showed me a row of duplexes on the southern coast of France and told me that was where they were stationing new recruits for "fighter school".

My second visit to the office, just as I was getting ready to sign my life over to Uncle Sam, a tick went off in the back of my head. There was something about that guy I just did not like, even as a stupid, young, average 17 year-old punk kid. I just did not trust him. So I walked out and my flirtation with military service was over.

All because of Top Gun. I built numerous F-14 models long before that movie came out, but that thing pushed me over the edge. I just loved that plane, and still do. I get goose bumps whenever I see one, including in the new trailers—even though there are only snippets and the Navy's fancy new replacement is the F-18 Super Hornet. Still, it gets me.

And, yes, the flight sequences were awesome then and they'll be better now.

And, no, Tom Cruise does not age. It isn't his thing. Dude is blessed with boyish good looks until he dies of old age. Must be something in the Scientology water.

Or something …

Either way, I'm looking forward to Maverick more than Star Wars, and that's saying a ton!

Boise State! … Boise State! … Boise State!
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2019-12-17, 05:43

Is it me, or did Tom Cruise have a weird/bad 2000s with the whole Oprah interview thing, and has since largely redeemed himself?

(I don't watch movies much, so I could be wrong. He seemed fine in Oblivion, for instance.)
  quote
kscherer
The Ban Hammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2019-12-17, 11:18

The last few of his movies that I've watched have been very good. Flat out loved Live Die Repeat and can watch that thing over and over again. Oblivion was very good. The Mission Impossible stuff is fun (although the writers are getting a little too unrealistic).

He's a good actor, and that he does the lion's share of his own stunts requires him to stay in peak physical condition, which is likely why he still looks so young.

Boise State! … Boise State! … Boise State!
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2019-12-17, 12:06

I will never understand the Cruise hate. The man jumped on a couch in front of Her Royal Majesty and had a minor squabble with a (known) moron on the “Today” show (BTW, of the two participants in said squabble, only one lost his career, reputation and marriage by being an unprofessional, predatory lout; to my knowledge, Tom Cruise hasn’t installed remote door-looking tech in his office to facilitate any “I’m gonna pull my dick out and make you choose between it and unemployment” activities. That would be Matt Lauer.

The Cruise stuff is just misguided sour grapes from people who are somehow magically able to overlook and ignore the far worse actions/behavior of many of his entertainment peers and colleagues (perpetual drug/rehab cycles, physical and/or sexual assault charges, DWI, tax/financial misdeeds, OD drama, cheating scandals and, yes, murder...hi, OJ and Mr. Spector).

But, yeah...whatever you do, don’t jump on a couch! Your career may not survive/recover.
  quote
kscherer
The Ban Hammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2019-12-17, 12:44

The dude is just that good. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying "good" as in "Tom Cruise is such a good man!" Good is a bit of a loose term here, where by "good" I mean "good actor, good worker, good fan support, good recovery, etc. Short of the tabloid marital exploits and dancing through wives, the guy is pretty clean (as far as Hollywood goes). On top of that, he keeps making one blockbuster film after another, has a loyal fan base, makes smart financial decisions, is a brilliantly good driver (fastest guest star ever around the track on Top Gun Gear). I mean, what's not to like about the guy (aside from Scientology)?

The haters are just jealous, methinks. I'm not a hater, but I'm also not jealous. I am a very private person and actually pretty shy, whereas people like Tom Cruise have to battle through a crap ton of excessive attention and poparazzi-prodding garbage that would drive me into a cave. Granted, popular people tend to bring that on themselves, but it's all in how you handle it, and I think he's done a [mostly] fine job.



I just watched a little Youtube thing a pilot did about the trailer and it's fun to hear a pro talk about the crazy maneuvers and the nostalgia bits. Funny, these "military" movies and how much they typically get wrong, but the reviewer is quick to point out that "it looks good on TV", which is a necessary thing considering the sheer amount of boredom involved in actual "military" things. I mean, have you ever watched a pair of fighters fly over? That straight line stuff sure would be fun! But it's no good on the big screen, so Hollywood injects lots and lots of either A) impossible maneuvers, and B) maneuvers that are possible but the real military would never permit or train for due to the high degree of danger. There are even peculiar aspects of the aircraft in question that Hollywood makes up to entertain the audience. For instance, the compressor stall in the F-14 Tomcat from Top Gun that lead to the flat spin that killed Goose was a semi-real thing with that particular plane due to the wide separation of the engine nacelles, although proper training negated the problem. Whereas the F-18 is a center-line thrust fighter (both engine nacelles are very close together) so an engine flameout does not produce a flat spin, like, ever!

But!

Hollywood needs a bit of creative latitude in order to make military movies exciting, otherwise we would all just go to sleep waiting for something interesting to happen. (All the jabber in foot-soldier type movies is there for us. Soldiers trying to remain undetected don't go about the countryside jabbering about random things, lest they get shot through the big ol' mouth).

Either way, the first movie was brilliant good fun, and I can not wait for #2!

Boise State! … Boise State! … Boise State!
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ghostbusters: The Video Game torifile AppleOutsider 17 2008-12-06 02:27


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:22.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2020, AppleNova