Jump to content
IGNORED

Ghostbusters -Afterlife


papalazarou
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sat the (now) Wife down to watch this tonight, she came along with me to watch the 2016 Ghostbusters and she thoroughly *hated* that. I've adored the films and cartoons since childhood so I'm biased, where as she was largely indifferent the original films.

 

She absolutely loved this. Its flawed I'll admit, perhaps a little rushed but as she said, why didn't they make this years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like many here, I'm a massive fan of the original - we watched this last night and yep, I can say I really enjoyed it.

 

However - and I'm gonna sound like an old codger now - the thing I find about a lot of the recent movies, is they just don't have the depth of the movies from the 80's/90's. I can watch something now and enjoy it, but I dunno everything seems either overly long, or somehow "watered down", I rarely get the urge to re-watch anything, and most are just throwaway experiences. Totally different to how I feel about movies like Alien/Aliens, Terminator, Predator or the original Ghostbusters - they had so much character they spawned their own culture.

 

Actually just reading that back, I think maybe it's not the movies themselves but maybe just the fact I'm older and my perspective has changed. 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was garbage from start to finish. Everyone in it was awful, the beat-for-beat story retread was terrible, it’s a lazy studio cash-in & an exercise in poor filmmaking. Strip away the goodwill the licence has from the original movie & it had no redeeming features whatsoever. 
 

… is what I would say if I was reviewing Ghostbusters 2. However Afterlife manages to be an even more diluted version of that. I didn’t really have any expectations of this being any good, so I suppose it delivered on something. 
 

It’s only saving grace is that I watched it during the same week as the new Matrix, it’s obviously not as bad as that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/01/2022 at 23:11, NexivRed said:


Because she shacks up with Moranis, not Ramis. 

 


It’s absolutely implied in the original movie that Janine and Egon are sleeping together, and they pretty much acknowledge it here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/01/2022 at 10:27, schmojo said:

 

I feel like most of the people who didn't like it will quickly realise that it wasn't made for them. And that's fine. The 40+ male audience of Star Wars/Ghostbusters fans are not the golden goose demographic they believe themselves to be.

 


You’ve got this completely backwards, that 40+ audience of Ghostbusters nerds is exactly who this was made for. The people reacting with bemusement are those who (correctly) see Ghostbusters as a brilliantly irreverent one-off satire which has been bizarrely deified by people who can’t let go of a cartoon that finished in the 80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CarloOos said:


You’ve got this completely backwards, that 40+ audience of Ghostbusters nerds is exactly who this was made for. The people reacting with bemusement are those who (correctly) see Ghostbusters as a brilliantly irreverent one-off satire which has been bizarrely deified by people who can’t let go of a cartoon that finished in the 80s.

 

Not at all. Whilst it's a great companion piece to the first, and made with tons of affection for it, you just have to see where the praise is coming from (basically all demographics), and where the criticism is coming from (the 40+ audience of Ghostbusters nerds). You don't make a film for that particular audience with women and children as leads, because they're vociferous about not liking that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of nonsense. A good movie is a good movie regardless of who is in it. 
 

I’ve no particular affection for Ghostbuster stuff, but even if I did it doesn’t change the product they have put out. Saying stuff like ‘it’s for children’ seems to be how you can handwave it away as being poorly made. 
 

Putting people who do or don’t like something into little groups is incredibly condescending & prejudiced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah great more psychoanalysing of peoiple who don't think a blockbuster is the second coming. Why is it never enough to just like a film and simply disagree with dissenting opinions. Why is there always a need to try and ascribe motives and prove that your opinion about subjective media is objectively right. I just don't get it. It happens in every big budget CGI-fest thread (not so much for other films). I know I'm like a broken record on this, but it just kills discussion as all it does is place people in the unjustified position of having to defend their personalities rather than debating the film itself. It then tends to get nasty as it's not a surprise that people don't particularly like being insulted - regardless what their opinion of a film is.

 

I don't agree with Fierce Poodles posts in this thread (and said as much earlier in the thread) but I thought it was interesting that when someone said that people who don't like the film are 'colossal twats' it got a whole bunch of posses and then he made an almost identical post from the opposite direction and two people who'd possed the original ad hominem insult acted upset and that it was out of order (which it was - and so was Thor's original post) but don't be hypocrites. Strider made a short post earlier in the thread simply saying he didn't like it without any reference to other posters and in return someone started questioning his job credentials! I mean WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, schmojo said:

 

Not at all. Whilst it's a great companion piece to the first, and made with tons of affection for it, you just have to see where the praise is coming from (basically all demographics), and where the criticism is coming from (the 40+ audience of Ghostbusters nerds). You don't make a film for that particular audience with women and children as leads, because they're vociferous about not liking that.


You see ‘tons of affection,’ I see total cynicism from a studio with whiplash from their last attempt to exhume this corpse and a director whose last four films flopped. You can tell where Reitman’s strengths lie because the coming of age stuff in the first half is actually pretty good, but the second half is so absurdly forced it retroactively derails everything for the sake of a few callbacks to a film that was never designed to hold any reverence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think people who don't like the film are colossal twats, or wrong, or sacriligious. People just need to accept that sometimes they don't like something because it wasn't particularly made for them. Even if they think it should have been.

 

And that's ok.

 

@Sexton Hardcastle I didn't say it's for children. But they are a group who seem to be responding well to it. I did imply that there are 40-something men who consider themselves to have ownership of certain franchises (whilst seemingly hating most of the output) who respond very poorly to female and child leads. And that's not exactly hard to find evidence of online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m still not sure where you’re getting that from. The people who were most toxic about Ghostbusters 2016 generally love Afterlife because it has the appropriate amount of fan pandering (‘affection’).

 

The people who don’t rate Afterlife are almost entirely those without have any great emotional attachment to Ghostbusters, viewing it as a film in its own right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

I’m still not sure where you’re getting that from. The people who were most toxic about Ghostbusters 2016 generally love Afterlife because it has the appropriate amount of fan pandering (‘affection’).

 

The people who don’t rate Afterlife are almost entirely those without have any great emotional attachment to Ghostbusters, viewing it as a film in its own right.

 

I'm not sure you know which camp you fall into yourself:

 

Quote

those who (correctly) see Ghostbusters as a brilliantly irreverent one-off satire

 

Is the original Ghostbusters 'brilliant', or do you 'not have any great emotional attachment' to it and see Afterlife as 'a film in its own right'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CarloOos It's pretty clear from your posts that you were never going to like this film.

40 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

You see ‘tons of affection,’ I see total cynicism from a studio with whiplash from their last attempt to exhume this corpse

The fact that you see the original as a corpse says a lot (fake edit: Or do you?  As per the above, make up your mind!). And your (and several others') following arguments have been very condescending, implying that people who enjoyed this film like it only because of the fan service, and can't possibly look at something objectively or enjoy it purely as a film in its own right. The majority of people in this thread thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and yes some are quite taken aback by how strongly the few people who don't like the film not only want to stick the boot into it, but look down their noses at those who do like it, and even twist the words of some posters to make barbed comments, such as:

 

On 08/01/2022 at 08:37, Harsin said:

I didn’t realise we’d now proven that enjoyment of media was an objective measurement of mental health.

Not your finest hour, Harsin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Thor said:

@CarloOos It's pretty clear from your posts that you were never going to like this film.

 

Well no, I’ve already said the film was quite good until the third act, but that third act ruins the whole lot. Everything from the supermarket scene onwards is a supremely shoddy exercise in rehashing things regardless of whether they make any thematic sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harsin said:

Ah great more psychoanalysing of peoiple who don't think a blockbuster is the second coming. Why is it never enough to just like a film and simply disagree with dissenting opinions. Why is there always a need to try and ascribe motives and prove that your opinion about subjective media is objectively right. I just don't get it. It happens in every big budget CGI-fest thread (not so much for other films). I know I'm like a broken record on this, but it just kills discussion as all it does is place people in the unjustified position of having to defend their personalities rather than debating the film itself. It then tends to get nasty as it's not a surprise that people don't particularly like being insulted - regardless what their opinion of a film is.

 

I don't agree with Fierce Poodles posts in this thread (and said as much earlier in the thread) but I thought it was interesting that when someone said that people who don't like the film are 'colossal twats' it got a whole bunch of posses and then he made an almost identical post from the opposite direction and two people who'd possed the original ad hominem insult acted upset and that it was out of order (which it was - and so was Thor's original post) but don't be hypocrites. Strider made a short post earlier in the thread simply saying he didn't like it without any reference to other posters and in return someone started questioning his job credentials! I mean WTF?

 

It might be because those that dislike a film must go on and on and on about not liking it with constant barbs and quibs to those that do and it gets tiresome. Like they have to convince us that we are wrong for enjoying a film and will never stop until we admit we're wrong.

 

See The Last Jedi. You couldn't say anything positive about that film without someone jumping down your throat about why it's bad. 

 

Don't like a film? Fine, express that opinion, that's what the forum is for. But constantly badgered people for liking it isn't the way to do that. Post your concerns, have a decision but don't talk down on those for enjoying it.

 

This isn't directed at you, just in general and not an enforcement for calling people twats for not enjoying it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, schmojo said:

 

Is the original Ghostbusters 'brilliant', or do you 'not have any great emotional attachment' to it and see Afterlife as 'a film in its own right'?


These aren’t mutually exclusive, the original Ghostbusters is a good film which was a victim of its own success. The reason the original works is because it’s actually a blue collar satire about a con-man who launches a pest-control business for ghosts, with the joke being that the ghosts actually end up being real. It’s a silly film which actively takes the piss out of itself, a joke that only works once, like any number of other 80s comedies.
 

Bill Murray was right all along, they should have left it there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Stigweard said:

Don't like a film? Fine, express that opinion, that's what the forum is for. But constantly badgered people for liking it isn't the way to do that. Post your concerns, have a decision but don't talk down on those for enjoying it.

Has anybody been badgered for not liking it? I've seen those not liking it told they "must be nuts", "colossal twats" or (paraphrasing) self-titled 40 somethings, but I don't see anybody telling those that liked it that they shouldn't have, unless I've missed something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gabe said:

Has anybody been badgered for not liking it? I've seen those not liking it told they "must be nuts", "colossal twats" or (paraphrasing) self-titled 40 somethings, but I don't see anybody telling those that liked it that they shouldn't have, unless I've missed something?

 

On 08/01/2022 at 20:08, Fierce Poodle said:

Anyone who actually liked this has the critical faculties of a lobotomised gibbon.

 

I'm not sure I can remember so divisive a film. I'm in the "loved it" camp - to the point I saw it twice at the cinema and have already bought it digitally to watch at home. But some people seem to really, really hate it. I was at a café a couple of weeks ago where a dude at the next table was loudly telling his girlfriend/date at some length about how Afterlife is "absolutely fucking dreadful" and one of the worst movies he'd ever seen.

 

Just a bit weird is all, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

Bill Murray was right all along, they should have left it there.

 

Really though? A lot of people seem to really like this movie. Does it's existence somehow ruin the original for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Zio said:

 

Really though? A lot of people seem to really like this movie. Does it's existence somehow ruin the original for you?


Not at all, but it doesn’t enhance or compliment it in any way either. 
 

I think all the back-and-forth over this page has been misconstrued, I don’t hate this film, I just think it’s a load of nothing which will be swiftly forgotten about. I only piped up because I found the suggestion that the haters were actually entitled Ghostbusters fans absurd. It’s a glorified fan film, all the self-confessed Ghostbusters fanboys in this thread loved it. 
 

Prior to the toxic reaction to Answer The Call I didn’t even realise Ghostbusters fandom was a thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Zio said:

 

 

I'm not sure I can remember so divisive a film. I'm in the "loved it" camp - to the point I saw it twice at the cinema and have already bought it digitally to watch at home. But some people seem to really, really hate it. I was at a café a couple of weeks ago where a dude at the next table was loudly telling his girlfriend/date at some length about how Afterlife is "absolutely fucking dreadful" and one of the worst movies he'd ever seen.

 

Just a bit weird is all, I guess.

I think opinions on a lot of things these days have moved to be at either end of the spectrum, there's not so much middle ground now. It's perhaps too easy to suggest a link, but I do wonder how much social media has changed that, whereby to generate clicks/likes/retweets etc it seems you need to have much more extreme reactions to something (good or bad)?

 

It's no different here, really, with the middle ground seemingly getting smaller and smaller. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Gabe said:

I think opinions on a lot of things these days have moved to be at either end of the spectrum, there's not so much middle ground now. It's perhaps too easy to suggest a link, but I do wonder how much social media has changed that, whereby to generate clicks/likes/retweets etc it seems you need to have much more extreme reactions to something (good or bad)?

 

It's no different here, really, with the middle ground seemingly getting smaller and smaller. 

 

This is definitely true. Someone mentioned The Last Jedi earlier. That's a film that online it seems you have to nail your colours to a mast and declare is either one of the best things committed to celluloid (well digital now) or an affront to the medium of cinema. I feel like I'm in vanishingly small subset who thought it was an alrightish but forgattable watch, with a few bits I liked but also a whole bunch of medicore stuff.

 

spacer.png

 

With this and the new Matrix I iked the first thirds of both, then was unimpressed when they took promising starts and quickly devolved into quasi-remakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a weird film. I enjoyed it enough I suppose. It's what you might want from a Goonies/Ghostbusters type of movie. I could leave it on in the background on a Saturday afternoon and be fairly entertained. But it feels like it was made by a computer algorithm and a group of marketing managers. It does that pretty well I guess? Good if you're into that sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CarloOos said:

Prior to the toxic reaction to Answer The Call I didn’t even realise Ghostbusters fandom was a thing. 

 

Oh, it is absolutely a thing. There's Ghostbuster cosplay "franchises" dotted around the world like you see with Star Wars stormtroopers.

I know this because I have my own Ghostbusters cosplay stuff.

 

The somewhat frustrating thing with the 2016 film is a lot of people were genuinely excited for it - myself included - but it turned out to be a bit shit. Not because of the casting, but because it was a bit shit. But because the Internet has always got to Internet and there was such vocal toxicity towards the all-female casting, you feel like saying you liked Afterlife but didn't like the 2016 one is like sort of outing yourself as a raging misogynist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harsin said:

With this and the new Matrix I iked the first thirds of both, then was unimpressed when they took promising starts and quickly devolved into quasi-remakes.

 

That particular move feels to me like the remake is really the intention all along. I blame The Force Awakens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Harsin said:

Ah great more psychoanalysing of peoiple who don't think a blockbuster is the second coming. Why is it never enough to just like a film and simply disagree with dissenting opinions. Why is there always a need to try and ascribe motives and prove that your opinion about subjective media is objectively right. I just don't get it. It happens in every big budget CGI-fest thread (not so much for other films). I know I'm like a broken record on this, but it just kills discussion as all it does is place people in the unjustified position of having to defend their personalities rather than debating the film itself. It then tends to get nasty as it's not a surprise that people don't particularly like being insulted - regardless what their opinion of a film is.

 

I don't agree with Fierce Poodles posts in this thread (and said as much earlier in the thread) but I thought it was interesting that when someone said that people who don't like the film are 'colossal twats' it got a whole bunch of posses and then he made an almost identical post from the opposite direction and two people who'd possed the original ad hominem insult acted upset and that it was out of order (which it was - and so was Thor's original post) but don't be hypocrites. Strider made a short post earlier in the thread simply saying he didn't like it without any reference to other posters and in return someone started questioning his job credentials! I mean WTF?

 

That was me. Not once did I question his job credentials. And if his first comment on the movie was "simply saying he didn't like it", then I dread the comment he makes on something he hates. Adding "WTF" and "just wow" doesn't help in these sort of discussions either, but that's off topic I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.