Why Is Ghostbusters: Afterlife Immune to Criticisms of the 2016 Reboot?

A follow-up to my previous post, which makes a great point about the treatment the 2021 movie got vs. the shitty treatment the 2016 movie got:

Why Is Ghostbusters: Afterlife Immune to Criticisms of the 2016 Reboot?

Let's face facts, people; like it or not, the 2016 movie was trashed because 'Eew! Girls!' and little else that that; to say it was anything else is just running down a certain river in Egypt. FWIW, I support the new movie, and will be going to see it this fall, but I agree with what's said in this article, and I will also say this: if Mckenna Grace's role in the new film isn't anything substantial as indicated in these trailers, the possible reaction from women (and girls) across the planet (film critics, bloggers, and filmgoers on social media platforms) against it will most likely be as nasty as what the male fans of the Ghostbusters franchise unleashed on the 2016 movie. I hope I'm wrong about that, but anything can happen, and as has been said, stranger things have happened.

 

Well, nothing like starting from a place of confidence.

(I actually got that you were talking about the article you were quoting/linking, but it took me a minute.)

But yeah, Internet misogynists (racists, homophobes, transphobes, et miserable al.) are an incredible crowd of wankers.

 

Did Afterlife come out yet?

 

The outrage at the outrage against the reboot has beaten the dead horse so much its just a puddle of mushy bits

 

There's one big difference that's responsible for the differing reception. Afterlife is in continuity with the original movies and 2016 was not. The decision to make 2016 a reboot showed a lack of respect for the franchise by the filmmakers and directly led to most of the vitriol.

 

That was your jam in the previous thread; people called you on it being exaggerated to the point of objective falsity, and now you've started a new thread to reiterate your faulty premise, and in so doing, wipe their voices away. Classy.

 

2016 had a shit, god awful trailer that no one wanted and they doubled down, even tripled down on it, by deciding the best PR move to the negative trailer reaction would be to call everyone who didn't like it sexist. Why? Because the movie was a fucking shitty disaster, I don't think there is a single, intentionally funny part in it. I'm never sure what part is supposed to be funny, sometimes it is like they didn't have a script, it was that bad, even when they were doing CGI stuff. I remember Sonic got a hugely negative reaction in the first trailer, so they changed it, released a second trailer and everyone loved it, it was a great little movie in the end.

I don't think the movie was "SJW" or political n anyway either, the Leslie Jones character could be deemed problematic. It was more that they seemed to have a genuinely shit movie on their hands, a movie that had cost a lot of money and their corporate strategy was to make out that it was a super important movie that was gonna liberate and inspire women worldwide, but only if you saw it. Wonder Woman did the same thing, except it was a fine movie with a fine trailer of an original character and no one cared.

Afterlife is a continuation of the original Ghostbusters, but to be honest, I don't care that much about it, I don't think the trailer was particularly funny but it hit all the right beats. And when I saw Paul Rudd had been cast, I thought it was pretty much the absolute perfect choice and gave me some hope.

 

It comes out later this year, fall of 2021.

 

This is BS.

 

Yeah, fuck that.

 

They finally made the movie? I'd read that a third installment was in the works but that was some time ago and before COVID19 came about.

Heck, did the sequel from 1989 need to be made? It wasn't that great either. I can understand why they opted to do a reboot, though how many more reboots tend to properly outdo their progenitors as opposed to coming across poorly?

 

No women in major roles, for one thing.

 

Never mind Rotten Tomatoes has equal relevance in 2020 what Siskel and Ebert did in 1985, go watch and like or dislike for one's own reasons rather than being told what they think just because they give it a number. S&E didn't always agree (or disagree) but moviegoers didn, for not always the same reasons. It's a form of art/entertainment, movies, and that's always subject to the viewer first and foremost.

I'd bet more people are going to see the movie or at least enough clips of it when it's released before praising or criticizing the content, because movies generally get scrutinized and people usually say to actually see something of it before doing so? Maybe that's why nobody is talking about it right now, as opposed to the claim of "it's immune to criticisms because of 2016's attempt to reboot wasn't a unanimous success"? Speculation over what the 2021 sequel brings only goes so far. For all we know, the failed reboot might be better in tone and quality. Won't know until later this year.

 

It didn't help that the 2016 movie was initially dropped to the press only as an "all-female reboot" with NO other details which just sounds like running out of ideas. People had nothing to focus on but 1.reboot 2.all-female. Conversely, Afterlife wasn't just thrown into the wild as "Ghostbusters with kids".

 

She was flat out offensive, but no one around her at her old job, or in that film had a fucking clue (or never gave a shit), so its "Leslie, dehumanize yourself as a black woman by screaming at the top of your lungs, and jumping around like you're in a Columbia Short Subject from 1942". Oh yeah, that was just so pleasing to audiences, especially black moviegoers (it was not). ....and Paul Feig had the gall to attack audiences for not liking a film that featured such offensive shit (among other things)? Screw him.

 

Hey, does anyone else remember how, at the end of a movie which rehashed lots of beats from the original flick while utterly failing to tell a worthwhile supernatural story of its own, GB16 finished with a post-credits scene teasing the return of Zuul? Becuse Feig and Co. had so many fresh and inventive ideas, they figured they'd better finish mining the original for nostalgia hits until its was bone-dry, so they could then get around to telling their own stories?

 

Just in case you haven't seen it yet, here's the trailer.

Not entirely true, we have McKenna Grace and Carrie Coon as two of the movie's leads.
As for the threads original question, the biggest difference for me is that Afterlife seems to be trying to go for more of a tone closer to what we got in the originals, while the 2016 movie seemed to be going for a very different tone, based off of the clips and trailers I've seen.

 

That's kind of Leslie's schtick though (I'd say it more chartiably but..), isn't it? She didn't seem out of character as I've seen her through the years. It seemed to me she and the others (McCarthy/Wiig/McKinnon) stayed pretty close to their bread and butter (slapstick/awkward/goofy).

 

Well, this is certainly an interesting rabbit hole...

I have no problem with the cast of the 2016 movie. In fact, I rather welcome it as a way to get new blood into the series. I think there's a lot of fair criticism, but most of it was overshadowed by the kneejerk reaction, both by Sony and its director. What they did was paint an overly broad brush at the criticism, having the effect of de-legitimizing valid criticism. And that's not cool. There were certainly some valid problems, mainly in the script being much of a retread.

Personally, I'm looking forward to Afterlife because I feel it's actually doing something new and revisiting the life of the franchise as a direct continuation to the original movies. Now, will it be good? If it ends up being a bad movie, then I'm sure all the criticism will tear it to shreds just like any other bad movie.

 

Well the obvious answer to the thread title is simple: -
'Ghostbusters: Answer the Call' came out four years ago. The trailer made it look crap. People saw it. It was crap.
'Ghostbusters: Afterlife' hasn't come out yet. The trailer looks at least halfway interesting. But nobody has actually seen it, thus nobody knows if it's also crap or not.

I mean, this isn't rocket science...thing that people haven't seen is immune to the criticisms of thing people have seen precisely because they haven't seen it. Do we need to draw a diagram here?