Ghostbusters: Afterlife

You're right, the original Ghostbusters would never resort to making jokes about periods.

Dr. Peter Venkman:Are you, Alice, menstruating right now?
Library Administrator: What has that got to do with it?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Back off, man. I'm a scientist.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I was never a big fan of the original. I don't see any benefit though to changing the leads to women, and I see lots of drawbacks - the only "benefit" I can see is political correctness (ex. "we need more women in movies"), which is more of just a way for hipsters to pleasure themselves than it is a "benefit" at all.

I don't think those things are actually vacuum-like, but I see your point. It would be funny if they actually did use more vacuum-like instruments.

But that's a different kind of menstruation joke.

Only movie I cared for her in was her short appearance in The Hangover 3 - she fit the role good as Allen's girlfriend.

I bet if someone searched the internet hard enough, they'd find some radical feminist angry that the movie features females using a traditional cleaning device - you really can't please the PC crowd no matter how hard you try.

It really is a sort of janitorial/cleaning business, if you think about it. They could play around with that. I never thought of it that way. Like, someone could be a maid in a house, but she's also a Ghostbuster. A ghost comes into the house -- the maid catches it.

Entourage is 'sex and the city' for men. They took all women and turned it male

Yeah, but it's not actually Sex and the City turned into men.

But that's a good example of the opposite kind of thing -- I would HATE to see Sex and the City go all-male. Like, if they rebooted the show or made another movie and it was four men... that would be stupid.

It's not called "Sex and the City though".

A Ghostbusters-type movie with women would totally slip under my radar - but making it an official sequel/remake just seems odd to me.

The appeal to tradition is actually important in movie marketing - because the entire point of calling it "Ghostbusters" is to use the nostalgia from the previous films as an attempt to market it - if it's too radically different then it will miss the point entirely and have been better off being called something else.

Much like releasing a "Call of Duty" sequel which is actually a strategy game instead of a FPS game - even if as a stand-alone game it wasn't awful, it would make the "Call of Duty" title seem like a cheap marketing trick if it had little resemblance to the earlier games.

Plus there's the fact that Ghostbusters hasn't had another movie in FOREVER... plus the fact that there's been talk about a new movie happening FOREVER... and then it just goes in this entirely different direction. It's like - SUDDENLY - now there's going to be a new movie, but it's going to be TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what we expected. It's a slap in the face to true fans.

It's like -- going back to Christ again -- you know how Jesus Christ is supposed to return to Earth someday? Well, what if he comes back, but he's Jessica Christ? People are gonna be PISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSED.

If Jesus was female she would technically be Jesusa Besides I doubt it would be a problem, the supreme being is the supreme being no matter what the sex. Some religions even use statues as their "supreme beings". Those don't even have a gender....unless they're built anatomically correct lol.

All other casting issues aside, Kristen Wiig is a solid actor. Girl Most Likely and Skeleton Twins weren't must see movies, but she was good in both of them. This is the path they have chosen and I think Wiig is the only one that will pull it off. I can see a lot similarities in her reactions to Bill Murray.

I'm lost on the reason behind this movie. This new version is doing nothing for me on a nostalgia level, because it already seems like it will be so different from the original. I don't see people flocking in droves to relive a past experience, nor do I see a new, younger demo saying, "Hey bruh, we gotta see this ."

Oh yeah. Slimer is an icon.

Point out to me one instance where I either said an all female cast is a bad idea or that I wouldn't watch it because it's an all female cast. I freaking dare you.

I put that in my write up because that's the knee-jerk reaction everyone has to criticism of the idea of a new Ghostbusters movie, whether the critic mentions it or not. I was stating right up front that the gender of the cast doesn't matter one damn bit to me.

What does, if you had read my post you'd know this, is the fact that no one in Hollywood has proven they can make a film like Ghostbusters. There hasn't been a comedy like that in decades. If I'm going to enjoy a new Ghostbusters, regardless of who they cast, it can't be jokes about being stoned or pooping in sinks or falling down or being a child with a grown up body or any other stupid ass joke you've seen in mainstream comedies for the last twenty years.

__________________

You know... I'd hate for some screenwriter to read this and steal my idea... but this makes me think... it's 2015. Why do they even need Ghostbusters that you have to call and have them come over to get rid of a ghost?

Obviously, in the world of Ghostbusters, they have the technology to get rid of ghosts with their laser gun things (proton packs) and those little catcher boxes.

But that was in the '80s.

Shouldn't the Ghostbuster technology expand to the point where catching ghosts becomes more of a personal, do-it-yourself kind of thing? I mean, why do you always need a Ghostbuster? They should have traps and things that you could buy in a store. Or maybe even the proton pack becomes an app on a smartphone -- use it, zap your ghost, your phone uploads it to the internet where it goes far away. Maybe to some special Ghostbusters.com database that keeps the ghosts.

There could be ghost detectors in your house... there's so much, really, that they could do in the Ghostbusters world. Maybe actual Ghostbusters are only really needed in the most severe cases -- like demons and things trying to take over the world -- or people who just don't have the equipment at home.

Don't you think the Ghostbuster technology should be reaching that kind of point by now?

I've deleted the last few posts. This stuff doesn't have to be friendly, but let's make sure it stays on this side of insulting or provoking, please.

I really don't see how this can possibly not bomb majorly, lol

Ghostbusters is always going to be one of those sensitive topics that cause people to lash out and get emotional. There are really only two lines of thought on a sequel. Those that agree with me and those that are horribly horribly wrong

Honestly, I didn't lash out because I love Ghostbusters, I lashed out because someone was telling lies about me.

That said, I don't think anything is completely sacred. My concern with Ghostbusters is that comedy trends have changed so much over the last thirty years that there's just no way to make a new Ghostbusters in the fashion or spirit of the original film. IMO, mainstream comedies are the absolute worst type of film being made these days. I do not want to watch a Ghostbusters film that feels like a Judd Apatow movie or resorts to gross out humor or any of the other tropes that run rampant in Hollywood comedies.

But, IMO, I like the idea of remakes/reboots because I like the idea of seeing other peoples takes on an idea or property. It's one of the reasons I'm so excited to see Star Wars because we're finally getting someone's take on the material other than Lucas'. Unfortunately, most remakes just plain suck.