"Ghostbusters: Afterlife" (2020)

[Andrew NDB Shot Caller Find all posts View Profile Close Andrew NDB]

The Ecto-1 has been spotted on set now:

https://www.tmz.com/2019/08/05/ghost...ing-new-movie/

My concern is... why is this the Ecto-1 and not the Ecto-1A, from GB2? Was the car in GB2 literally supposed to be a whole new vehicle?

I sure hope they're not ignoring GB2...

[Rotten2thecorps Alpha-Lantern Find all posts View Profile Close Rotten2thecorps]

All things considered after 2016,I am not Going to crucify them for a tiny continuity error.

[Andrew NDB Shot Caller Find all posts View Profile Close Andrew NDB]

All things considered after 2016,I am not Going to crucify them for a tiny continuity error.

Very true. Though I'm less thinking it's a continuity error or intentional oversight as much as a conscious decision to shirk GB2.

[Big Daddy Dave Skywalker Moisture Farmer Find all posts View Profile Close Big Daddy Dave Skywalker]

I wouldn't imagine so. It's not like GB2 is held in any disdain by fans.

[HalFingJordan Alpha-Lantern Find all posts View Profile Close HalFingJordan]

This is very insulting to the ladies and fans of the 2016 movie. Very disappointing and backwards that they would do this.

[Mister Ed Horse of a Different Color Find all posts View Profile Close Mister Ed]

This is very insulting to the ladies and fans of the 2016 movie. Very disappointing and backwards that they would do this.

I don't want to sound insulting, but I'm wondering if you are serious about this.

Is it really "insulting" that they would actually do a straight-up sequel based on the original movie(s)? Something that they have, reportedly, been trying to get off the ground for years, since before the 2016 movie was even proposed?

Certainly, that this movie is finally getting made now, after the 2016 film, DOES seem to argue that they don't have much confidence in the ability of the new cast to successfully carry the franchise forward. I assume that the performance of that film was disappointing to the studio, and this is their last-ditch attempt to see if they can still make money off the property by going back to its roots.

But is that INSULTING?

I imagine that, as disappointed as fans of the 2016 film might be by this development, the announcement of the 2016 film was a disappointment to those that wanted more of the Ghostbusters they had fond memories of, not a reboot with a new cast.

Myself, I would be fine with them not making ANY new Ghostbusters films. I didn't see the 2016 film (reviews were not good enough to draw me in), and don't plan to see this one (unless reviews are particularly glowing). But I'm not someone with a real attachment to the franchise. I enjoyed the first movie quite a bit, but didn't feel like it needed any kind of sequel, and recall being disappointed in the sequel it did get (I think I've only watched it once).

[Andrew NDB Shot Caller Find all posts View Profile Close Andrew NDB]

May be called "Ghostbusters: Afterlife."

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/11...ters-afterlife

[HalFingJordan Alpha-Lantern Find all posts View Profile Close HalFingJordan]

I don't want to sound insulting, but I'm wondering if you are serious about this.

Is it really "insulting" that they would actually do a straight-up sequel based on the original movie(s)? Something that they have, reportedly, been trying to get off the ground for years, since before the 2016 movie was even proposed?

It's very insulting. What would you say to all the little girls who identified with the female Ghostbusters who became their hero? For a whole generation?

"They weren't good enough?"

Certainly, that this movie is finally getting made now, after the 2016 film, DOES seem to argue that they don't have much confidence in the ability of the new cast to successfully carry the franchise forward. I assume that the performance of that film was disappointing to the studio, and this is their last-ditch attempt to see if they can still make money off the property by going back to its roots.

It did fine at the box office. Now you're just making up things.

But is that INSULTING?

Incredibly.

Myself, I would be fine with them not making ANY new Ghostbusters films. I didn't see the 2016 film (reviews were not good enough to draw me in), and don't plan to see this one (unless reviews are particularly glowing). But I'm not someone with a real attachment to the franchise. I enjoyed the first movie quite a bit, but didn't feel like it needed any kind of sequel, and recall being disappointed in the sequel it did get (I think I've only watched it once).

Ghostbusters 2016 was sold as the beginning of a new franchise for a new generation for half of the population, which is female. Changing course on that is culturally irresponsible and maybe even dangerous.

[Mister Ed Horse of a Different Color Find all posts View Profile Close Mister Ed]

It did fine at the box office. Now you're just making up things.

Nah, not making stuff up, just making assumptions. Guess they turned out to be wrong, so sorry for that. I can't for the life of me figure out why the studio would abandon the new cast if the box office had been as good as they hoped for, but you obviously know more about that than I do, so I'll happily take your word that it was.

Still don't see how making a movie they've reportedly been trying to make for ages, since long before the 2016 film, is "insulting" to anybody, though. (Unless it ends up sucking.)

[Andrew NDB Shot Caller Find all posts View Profile Close Andrew NDB]

"Ghostbusters: Afterlife" is revealed as the title. Also, trailer this week.

https://www.joblo.com/horror-movies/...ming-this-week

[Big Daddy Dave Skywalker Moisture Farmer Find all posts View Profile Close Big Daddy Dave Skywalker]

This is very insulting to the ladies and fans of the 2016 movie. Very disappointing and backwards that they would do this.

I think a great wrong may be about to be righted. Nobody cares what fans of that movie think. Everybody in my household refused to see it.

[Michael Heide Heide Finition Find all posts View Profile Close Michael Heide]

GB16 wasn't terrible. Its only, albeit massive, massive problem was that 97% of the jokes fell flat. But the effects were breathtaking (actually breaking the letterbox format with the ghost and proton pack effects, but only with those, was genius) and the action, especially the one big set piece at the end was immensely entertaining. And the cast they assembled is usually a lot funnier. McCarthy as Sean Spicer was hilarious. McKinnon kills it on SNL. Hemsworth has great comedic chops. Letting these people adlib all of the dialog should have worked, and it blows my mind that they seemingly went with the worst takes in every single scene.
GB16 was not the Aykroyd/Murray Ghostbusters, and it was never trying to be. But as a live-action version of the Real Ghostbusters cartoon show (only with other characters), it was solid. With an additional draft by, say, Lord and Miller, or Jordan Peele, or any writer who nails funny banter, this would have gone through the roof, ladies or not.
Grab the blu-ray out of the bargain bins. It's worth a dollar or two.

[Andrew NDB Shot Caller Find all posts View Profile Close Andrew NDB]

Letting these people adlib all of the dialog should have worked, and it blows my mind that they seemingly went with the worst takes in every single scene.

I think one of the problems on GB16 was that the ad-libbing and such didn't work out as well as GB84 because there was probably a whole lot less cocaine on that set.

Grab the blu-ray out of the bargain bins. It's worth a dollar or two.

I wouldn't recommend the extended version, though. It just adds a bunch of new dance numbers to it.

[Tazer That Evil, Yellow Bastiche Find all posts View Profile Close Tazer]

Yo.

It did fine at the box office. Now you're just making up things.

looks like Ed was right: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters_(2016_film)

Budget - $144 million

Domestic - $128,350,574

International - $100,796,935

Worldwide - $229,147,509

-----

Box Office

Ghostbusters grossed $128.3 million in North America and $100.8 million in other territories for a worldwide total of $229.1 million, with a net production budget of $144 million. Due to the large amount spent on marketing, the studio stated that the film would need to gross at least $300 million to break even. Before the release, director Paul Feig stated, "A movie like this has to at least get to like $500 million worldwide, and that’s probably low."

/shrug :/

Ghostbusters 2016 was sold as the beginning of a new franchise for a new generation for half of the population, which is female. Changing course on that is culturally irresponsible and maybe even dangerous.

its a concern, maybe, but if it (much like the recent Charlie's Angels -reboot), fails to reach enuff of that audience to be a viable financial property that they cant even recover its budget from the combined worldwide market (let alone the domestic one), would U say that the answer is to just keep making them until they DO catch on?

I don't think U'll like the reply for that Q, if U were to ask it. :/




Tazer

[Tazer That Evil, Yellow Bastiche Find all posts View Profile Close Tazer]

Yo.

May be called "Ghostbusters: Afterlife."

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/11...ters-afterlife

Tazer