Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Tools    





Addition: "30 Years Ago"... ?


Erm, I was under the impression that the original was made in 1984.
In-Universe?
__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel



From Wiki:
"Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) and Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) are a pair of unheralded authors who write a book positing that ghosts are real. A few years later, Gilbert lands a prestigious teaching position at Columbia University, but her book resurfaces and she is laughed out of academia. When ghosts invade Manhattan, Gilbert reunites with Yates, teaming up with a nuclear engineer, Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon), and a subway worker, Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), to save the world from a mysterious evil and powerful demon known as Rowan (Neil Casey)."

Plus the original cast are having cameos as random characters. Last I heard was that Aykroyd was playing a taxi driver.



I think that stuff at the start of the trailer is a nod to the audience rather than making out the movie is a sequel. If it was a sequel, surely there would be a reference to the original films in those clips.


The synopsis alone from wiki and IMDb is enough to see this movie is a hard remake.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
4 scientist?? Since when was Winston a scientist???

For a film already fighting an uphill battle from original fans, it's doing nothing to win them over. This is clearly a lazy cash grab on the nostalgia of a good film.

Sad.



Actually doesn't look THAT BAD.... but it's only the trailer.

I don't like the look of all of those ghosts roaming around New York.



I've just watched the trailer – the film looks just as awful as I expected it to be, with a distict aura of sacrilege. The only person I responded to in the cast is Kate McKinnon, who does at least look like she has the best character. One thing that I noticed was how poor the special effects seem, almost like a living comic (is this intentional?)



4 scientist?? Since when was Winston a scientist???

For a film already fighting an uphill battle from original fans, it's doing nothing to win them over. This is clearly a lazy cash grab on the nostalgia of a good film.

Sad.
You're right – they've made a mistake there. I don't believe that they are directly referencing the original Ghostbusters in the film so why the text intro?



Unlike the original film, where the optical and physical effects were believable.



Wanna Date? Got Any Money?
Kind of smells like a chick flick rife with bad tropes, but I hope I'm wrong. And I like the look of the ghosts, the use of vibrant colour, the remix of the theme song and the new ECTO-1 (Ghostbusters car) looks pretty cool. I do like Kristen Wiig, and I heard Eliza Dushku makes an appearance, and she's pretty rad. Not a huge fan of Melissa McCarthy and I absolutely detest the whole "Sassy Black Woman" Trope when done in a comical fashion, so those alone are enough to potentially spoil it for me. But for nostalgia's sake I might suck it up and see what enjoyment I can get out of it.
__________________
Buy a bag, go home in a box.



and I absolutely detest the whole "Sassy Black Woman" Trope when done in a comical fashion
I sure don't. That's what's gonna save this movie.



Slimer always looked pretty fake to me.
Yeah he was puppet-like in how the rolls of fat were moving, but even so I don't think you can beat a real object. Same thing with Mr Stay Puft.



Yeah he was puppet-like in how the rolls of fat were moving, but even so I don't think you can beat a real object. Same thing with Mr Stay Puft.
You can with a combination of real objects and CG. Where The Wild Things Are had fantastic CGI characters.