Spoilers Ghostbusters: Afterlife grade and discussion thread

Spoiler: same spoiler

So that was her, I know someone had mentioned her earlier in the thread, but with all of the makeup, short hair, and CGI, I couldn't for sure if it was.

 

Not exactly. The Ecto 1-B was kinda half-way between the other two designs.

At this point, I'm just going to assume each version is a different car, because those old caddies just keep breaking down.

 

I always figured the Ghostbusters II logo was a short term marketing gimmick that showed they were back in business. But would revert to the standard logo later. Similar to baseball teams who have special shirt terms logos for certain seasons.

Where to begin - I absolutely loved this movie! I knew a lot before seeing but it still surpassed all my expectations in terms execution and delivery. Sure it’s full of throwbacks but it’s just building on what we already know of this world. How did that become a bad thing?

I stayed to the end and apparently there was a name I did not notice - very familiar character actor Bob Gunton is listed as “Ghost Farmer”.

But Gunton does not look like well..
you know who. But looking him up he is similar age and exact height. No doubt they needed an actor on set to interact with the rest of the cast. So likely cgi altered face or perhaps makeup and cgi combination.

 

On reflection, I just realised that there's more than a few references in this movie to the RGB toyline; the Ecto-1 having a gunner's seat, and a ghost trap that drops out the back were both features of the toy. Granted the gunner's seat is this giant deckchair looking thing that attaches to the roof or stored in the back, and the "trap" is a grabber claw on a retractable piece of string, but still . . .

The logo is neither here nor there since the most pertinent detail is the licence plate. Yes you can legally change a licence plate but: 1) why?, and 2) why then change it back?

IIRC the intent in GBII is that it was a "new" car, which is why they set-up the old one backfiring and on it's last legs in the first act (I think the novelization supposedly makes it explicit, but I never bothered to seek it out.) There's even a few shots still in the movie where you can still see the original "Ecto 2" plate before the changed it (specifically the scene outside Venkman's apartment building, before they go down into the sewers, IIRC.)
I'm guessing because the toy people didn't want to confuse it with the Ecto 2 gyrocopter from the cartoon.

 

I would love a tv series in the style of Stargate SG-1. Minor spoilers for the movie

Spoiler

Winston is financing and recruiting a new team when ghosts start attacking New York

There's always the question of past characters though

"Where's Batman? He left Gotham?"

This would be "Where's Peter and Ray?" They could just be retired with maybe a cameo from Akyrod.

 

If they were to do a show; Ray (and his occult books) is the obvious choice for an expositional Giles type character for any hypothetical new team, and I'd be willing to bet Aykroyd would be into it. Hell, exposition is kinda what he does best!

I don't think there need be any explanation as to why Venkman isn't around because: Venkman! If they really want another legacy character then I guess Oscar Barret might be an idea, though it's not really necessary.

 

Afterlife was everything I could hope for as the long-awaited sequel. The story was full of heart, humor, and scares but most importantly, it was so much damn fun.

Yes, it was also full of nostalgic callbacks but Afterlife stands on its own very well by introducing wonderful new characters, most notably Phoebe Spengler, who I can only hope will have a chance to continue to carry the torch in more films. Grace McKenna stole the whole damn film from everyone, even from the likes of Carrie Coon and Paul Rudd! I loved everything about the character, her unrelenting and unapologetic nerdiness, her ceaseless drive to figure out problems, and her steely resolve to do what was right, despite what stupid grown-ups think.

Above all else, the film was a beautiful tribute to Harold Ramis and Egon Spengler. There were tears. Many tears. I honestly thought the film was going to leave Egon in shadows and an invisible influence, but imagine my surprise and delight when he appeared as a proper, visible apparition! I was especially impressed by how well they digitally recreated Ramis' performance and how seamless and believable he appeared. Granted, it helped that it was at night, he was a translucent ghost, and very scruffy (as Ramis was in his latter days), but it was very impressive nonetheless.

It was a blink and you miss it moment, but I love how J.K. Simmons briefly appeared as Ivo Shandor (I didn't even recognize him until he opened his eyes the first time)...and then was immediately ripped in half by Gozer! So much for loyalty and devotion!

Ten out of ten mini-Stay Puft Marshmallow Men!

 

I took Phoebe's and Podcast's placements in remedial summer school as commentary on the rigid goals of public school education on hitting certain goalposts to prove their "education" as oppose to any indication of lack of intelligence on either of their parts. It's clear they're both very smart for certain expertises (electrical engineering for Phoebe, audio documentation for Podcast) regardless what the state thinks of their educational levels.

Yes! Of course! I knew that bugger looked familiar but I couldn't figure out why! It's been years and years since I've watched The Real Ghostbusters! I really need to watch it again.

The taser function came up in one of Adam Savage's behind-the-scenes videos but I don't think either he or the prop master mentioned Extreme Ghostbusters (I never watched that one so I can't comment on that part).

I figured that was her! I recognized her eyes but I wasn't sure if it was her until I saw the news online! Her blink-and-you-miss-it cameo is almost as great as J.K. Simmons as Ivo!

 

That was the problem for me, the 1st half was interesting and the 2nd half was all about nostalgia. The studios keep proving it is really really REALLY hard to make a Ghostbusters movie.

 

. . . Wait, that was J.K. Simmons!?

 

Indeed. Even I noticed that. Made me laugh.

I don’t know why nostalgia is a bad thing now. I just saw it as a sequel to the first movie, Made sense that the architect would have a backup.

 

I'm a little unclear as to whether the temple in the mine was a back-up, or a second attempt. The first movie mentioned rituals up on the roof, which presumably didn't work. The list of dates on the wall included '45 which was the year he supposedly "died", and all the stone petrified corpses lying around (the other members of his cult, one assumes?) plus the sudden appearance of the giant carving indicates *something* happened.

Just speculating but baybe the building/antenna didn't collect and focus enough psychic turbulence? Or they didn't find out about the optimal dates until later, but when '45 rolled around *something* just didn't work and he either died in the attempt? Or he knew they still hadn't been able to build up enough charge for the portal and so sacrificed his followers in an effort to preserve himself until a later cross-rip event? I feel like there's a missing piece here somewhere. Why not seal his corpse away somewhere in the apartment building? I mean they went to all that trouble to custom build the thing, why then use the selenium mine instead?

 

But the 1st half of the movie is really working, and a pinch of nostalgia is fine, I just don't want to be hit on the head with it. I definitely will recommend my friends to see this on TV or VOD streaming.

 

Seemed just right to me. At least they did a better job with it than those Star Wars sequels.

 

I would think if they brought them back, they would be the mentors/teachers for the new team.

 

Yup, like I said in my review, I didn't recognize him until he opened his eyes the first time and then it was pretty clear to me. Still shocking (but hilarious) that he had such a bit role in the film.

 

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/article/ed4285596676/?ref_=bo_hm_hp

It opened with a $44 Million opening weekend. Which was far above industry expectations. Another huge advantage is it had a much smaller budget that the 2016 movie. Which is refreshing on so many levels. It’s baffling why some of these films cost so much. CGI was supposed to make things easier and cheaper. But rarely can the cost be seen on screen.

I had forgotten that in 2017 Dan Aykroyd made a huge public criticism
of Paul Feig but not the actual movie. Saying during production everyone told Feig that he needed to add certain things, scenes, to help the story. But Feig ignored the advice but later found he had to do it anyways in massive reshoots. Which cost a fortune and pissed off Sony.

This is very much Jason Reitman’s movie and it feels like it. But he has revealed his father Ivan Reitman, director of the first 2, had a chair next to him the whole production. He sought his advice because this type of effects heavy film was new to him. The movie and the future of the franchise is stronger for it.

 

I was actually surprised to see the budget was so low. Not because it looked expensive or anything, but just that the mid-budget high concept movies have all but become extinct, at least in theatres.

 

I had the great pleasure to get to see it all on my own in a private showing. (It helps that Opening Days Noon Showings tend to be slow in the small cinema in my birth town....doing some nice understanding smalltalk with the owners did the trick..."Okay...one ticket sold is way less then the cost for showing it...but well...let´s run it just for you :-) )

It WAS a nostalgia fest, especially during the second half. But I loved every second of it...maybe it could have done without the whole jail thing...but I also don´t really like the human antagonists in the first and second movies. I just think those bits seem "tacked" on and the franchise would actually benefit from the supernatural beeing the only antagonists.

I love the new team and how they´re slowly learning how stuff works. I hope Ghostbusters 4 won´t be too far in the future.

 

I hope this is a sign the studios are learning to keep budgets for features in check. It’s been a growing problem over the last couple decades.

The worst of it is that the expectation levels for profits are so beyond what it use to be considered a blockbuster. Many movies are damned before release. It’s silly because most of the money is made in secondary releases on other platforms. But they need the huge theatrical launch for stuff to standout. There are so many streaming options it’s easy for stuff to get lost.

For me I love going to a theater. Also stories that have beginnings, middles, and endings. Streaming/tv is dominated by long form storytelling that requires an investment of your life. Which can be great but hard to see everything.