Ghostbusters: Afterlife is getting a sequel

boing
1

Originally published at: Ghostbusters: Afterlife is getting a sequel | Boing Boing

…

2 Likes
2

serious question – was Ghostbusters:Afterlife any good? have been kind of meh about watching it.

3

[Any marginally successful movie] is getting a sequel

1 Like
4

It was fun. Was it good? That’s a trickier question, but it was fun.

14 Likes
5

Agreed, watched it in-flight, with my 13yo and we liked it. Covered the bases pretty well, no significant holes in the story line. Definitely rang more bells if you’d seen the original, but stood well enough on it’s own. .

2 Likes
6

I think it was okay, but it would be interesting to see what happens to the kids now. Like I think the draw of Ghostbusters is going to be the cast really playing off of each other which I think they did okay. I just hope the screenwriters understand that it might need to take the sequel into another direction due to the unique aspects of the characters in contrast to the original four actors/characters. Getting the same kind of Venkman/Spengler interaction is not something I expected nor should anyone expect with the new characters. Basically, let them be their own thing and don’t lean too much into the past for the sequel.

2 Likes
7

I was pleasantly surprised at how it exceeded my expectations. While it had a Stranger Things vibe and went back to the well almost as much as Star Wars 7, it seems to be ready to launch in its own direction. That said, now that the nostalgia episode is done with, the formula needs to be rejiggered to adapt to replacing stand-up comics as the leads since it has a different tone.

2 Likes
8

The 2016 film and its amazing cast deserved better.

I gave up on this franchise after that debacle.

7 Likes
9

It was quite enjoyable. Took a little too long to get rolling but not time wasted.

2 Likes
10

I really wanted to like the 2016 version but it was more of a collection of skits for the actors to riff on each other, than a fully formed movie.

5 Likes
11

I watched it and the only things that stand out in my mind are Ghost Spengler standing next to Ghost Obi-Wan and Yoda at the end… and Bill Murray shows up for 2 seconds to kill a gopher. OMG it was bad.

The 2016 version had more crackle to it. Thor was hilarious as the secretary, and the one scene I laughed out loud was in the restaurant talking about gloom & doom as the rumble gets louder, and it was a BFI rolling down the sidewalk.

2 Likes
12

Sounds a lot like a certain film from the mid 80’s to me.

2 Likes
13

I don’t think “campy” is really the right word for the original, because that suggests it was self-awarely silly. However, Akroyd is legitimately a true believer in that stuff. Yes it was obviously a comedy romp and he co-wrote it as such. Nevertheless some part of it for him was, if not documentary, at least trying to get people interested in looking into the paranormal and taking it seriously.

I gotta be honest, I lost a little love for the original upon learning Akroyd’s stance about the subject matter.

1 Like
14

But without the underlying plot to tie it together it felt like an overlong SNL skit. Good scenes don’t make a good movie.

2 Likes
15

Serious answer:

Not really. It was clearly a nostalgia ‘money grab’ with a bit of fan service thrown in.

Agreed.

4 Likes
16

That cartoon is so 90’s it almost burns:

  • ‘Cutting edge’ janky CGI? Check
  • Everyone looks like they’re in a grunge band (including a goatee)? Check
  • Statistically improbable diversity that would otherwise only be seen in a Power Rangers lineup? Check
  • Overuse of the word ‘extreme’? Double check
1 Like
17

So how many animated Ghostbusters shows were there? I’d never heard of Extreme Ghostbusters.

I remember there was a “Ghostbusters” which had absolutely nothing to do with the movie except the title, and sucked.

Then there was “Real Ghostbusters” (so named because of previous) which had the same characters from the movie, and was actually OK.

18

That “other Ghostbusters” was originally a short-lived live-action kiddie series back in the 70s. So, yeah, it actually came first and “the” Ghostbusters producers had to pay for rights to use the name. And of course when the original movie was such a hit, the owners of “The Ghost Busters” immediately cranked out the cash-in series.

3 Likes
19

Yeah, I feel like the heart of the movie was potentially a fun, light-weight romp that was constantly undermined - and ultimately, completely derailed - by nostalgic fanservice. So many elements where if you ask, “why is this is the movie?” the only answer is “fanservice that’ll look good in a trailer.”

I felt pretty “meh” having watched it.

1 Like
20

The way I treated the 2016 movie was as an alternate universe version. The callbacks and cameos were pretty funny in their own right, Hemsworth was hilarious as the goofy himbo secretary, and if you took it as a standalone movie it was ‘good enough’.

I’ll probably pick up Afterlife and give it a watch, if only to see what path it took.

3 Likes