Discuss Ghostbusters: Afterlife, released on November 19, 2021 and directed by Jason Reitman.
#4938535
But she hasn't been wasted or "effectively written off", she's been given a new engine and a new lease of life in a whole new Ghostbusters movie, when up until then, she was rusting away in a Sony storage facility.
robbritton, Sav C, Alphagaia and 1 others liked this
#4938536
RichardLess wrote: August 17th, 2020, 1:56 pmBut this is the chance to see the franchise we all love become a big hit and phenomenon again.

I’ve always maintained that had Sony made a GB3 instead of remake/reboot, it would’ve been huge, box office wise. People wanted it in the same way they wanted to see Indiana Jones 4 or their old friends in the original Star Wars. People wanted to see Harrison Ford play Han Solo, not another actor. So in a selfish way...I really want to see how people respond to GBA since it’s a true sequel. Now of course it’s not really a sequel in the way those other versions of GB3 were.
When I said before that you weren't treating the film as a question mark, this is what I mean. The whole reason Sony dragged their feet on any GB3 that couldn't land Murray is because they were skeptical there was a blockbuster audience for that movie without him (and perhaps even with him, given they rejected Hellbent at $150m in 1999 money), and I think they were probably right (even Ghostbusters 2016 cost too much).

I floated this in here before, but I really think there's a huge difference in how the casual moviegoing audience views something that had a trilogy and something that had fewer entries. If they had made a Ghostbusters 3 back in the '90s, the equation would be totally different -- then it would be "a franchise" to the rest of the world in the way it is to the fans. Instead, I think most people who like it look at it as a great movie and a bad sequel, and they have not actually been clamoring to see Ghostbusters 3 in the same way they felt the door was always open for more Indiana Jones adventures or more Star Wars movies.

I do not think there's much of a possibility that Ghostbusters becomes a phenomenon like it once was. All I'm rooting for is for the movie to be 1) a good movie and 2) a solid hit, because I would like to see more of these movies. But even that's a pretty big question mark. Has a rebooted series (other than multi-iteration things like Batman or Superman, or perhaps James Bond) actually gone onto long-term success? Even if there are some examples, that can't be a very long list.

While we have no Ghostbusters: Afterlife news to talk about, I just saw this.

https://collider.com/john-belushi-biopi ... GF-UvZuYqE

I like Ike Barinholtz quite a bit -- he's very good in the 2018 movie Blockers -- but boy, I just do not see him as a Dan Aykroyd type.
#4938542
Kingpin wrote:But she hasn't been wasted or "effectively written off", she's been given a new engine and a new lease of life in a whole new Ghostbusters movie, when up until then, she was rusting away in a Sony storage facility.
The real car perhaps but the in canon Ecto 1A and the car many of us are attached to apparently has gone forever in the guise we know and love.
#4938543
droidguy1119 wrote:
RichardLess wrote: August 17th, 2020, 1:56 pmBut this is the chance to see the franchise we all love become a big hit and phenomenon again.

I’ve always maintained that had Sony made a GB3 instead of remake/reboot, it would’ve been huge, box office wise. People wanted it in the same way they wanted to see Indiana Jones 4 or their old friends in the original Star Wars. People wanted to see Harrison Ford play Han Solo, not another actor. So in a selfish way...I really want to see how people respond to GBA since it’s a true sequel. Now of course it’s not really a sequel in the way those other versions of GB3 were.
When I said before that you weren't treating the film as a question mark, this is what I mean. The whole reason Sony dragged their feet on any GB3 that couldn't land Murray is because they were skeptical there was a blockbuster audience for that movie without him (and perhaps even with him, given they rejected Hellbent at $150m in 1999 money), and I think they were probably right (even Ghostbusters 2016 cost too much).

I floated this in here before, but I really think there's a huge difference in how the casual moviegoing audience views something that had a trilogy and something that had fewer entries. If they had made a Ghostbusters 3 back in the '90s, the equation would be totally different -- then it would be "a franchise" to the rest of the world in the way it is to the fans. Instead, I think most people who like it look at it as a great movie and a bad sequel, and they have not actually been clamoring to see Ghostbusters 3 in the same way they felt the door was always open for more Indiana Jones adventures or more Star Wars movies.

I do not think there's much of a possibility that Ghostbusters becomes a phenomenon like it once was. All I'm rooting for is for the movie to be 1) a good movie and 2) a solid hit, because I would like to see more of these movies. But even that's a pretty big question mark. Has a rebooted series (other than multi-iteration things like Batman or Superman, or perhaps James Bond) actually gone onto long-term success? Even if there are some examples, that can't be a very long list.

.
I agree with you 100%. Despite our love for it, Extreme Ghostbusters never really took off, either. I'm sure that also factored into not making a $150m third entry.

Sadly, Ghostbusters just hasn't been a very well managed IP. The first movie and first two seasons of RGB were great. But then the corporate suits made the mistake of listening to a consulting firm to soften the tone of RGB, and the studio went out of its way to bring elements of the softened cartoon to GB2. It just took the shine off of the IP, in my opinion.

GB:A might do well. I would imagine that it will help set up the Ecto Force cartoon. Maybe there are several seasons and a sequel to GB:A set in the future with 40 something Phoebe and Trevor leading a new team. It could also go the way of Extreme Ghostbusters and be a one season series that is beloved by fans, but is mostly forgotten or unheard of by the average person.
#4938555
GaudinosWheels wrote: August 24th, 2020, 3:24 pm and the car many of us are attached to apparently has gone forever in the guise we know and love.
Welcome to the world fans of the original Ecto-1 were in starting in 1989 when they saw the original car turned into Ecto-1A.
Alphagaia, deadderek liked this
#4938559
droidguy1119 wrote: August 24th, 2020, 12:51 pm
RichardLess wrote: August 17th, 2020, 1:56 pmBut this is the chance to see the franchise we all love become a big hit and phenomenon again.

I’ve always maintained that had Sony made a GB3 instead of remake/reboot, it would’ve been huge, box office wise. People wanted it in the same way they wanted to see Indiana Jones 4 or their old friends in the original Star Wars. People wanted to see Harrison Ford play Han Solo, not another actor. So in a selfish way...I really want to see how people respond to GBA since it’s a true sequel. Now of course it’s not really a sequel in the way those other versions of GB3 were.
When I said before that you weren't treating the film as a question mark, this is what I mean. The whole reason Sony dragged their feet on any GB3 that couldn't land Murray is because they were skeptical there was a blockbuster audience for that movie without him (and perhaps even with him, given they rejected Hellbent at $150m in 1999 money), and I think they were probably right (even Ghostbusters 2016 cost too much).

I floated this in here before, but I really think there's a huge difference in how the casual moviegoing audience views something that had a trilogy and something that had fewer entries. If they had made a Ghostbusters 3 back in the '90s, the equation would be totally different -- then it would be "a franchise" to the rest of the world in the way it is to the fans. Instead, I think most people who like it look at it as a great movie and a bad sequel, and they have not actually been clamoring to see Ghostbusters 3 in the same way they felt the door was always open for more Indiana Jones adventures or more Star Wars movies.

I do not think there's much of a possibility that Ghostbusters becomes a phenomenon like it once was. All I'm rooting for is for the movie to be 1) a good movie and 2) a solid hit, because I would like to see more of these movies. But even that's a pretty big question mark. Has a rebooted series (other than multi-iteration things like Batman or Superman, or perhaps James Bond) actually gone onto long-term success? Even if there are some examples, that can't be a very long list.

While we have no Ghostbusters: Afterlife news to talk about, I just saw this.

https://collider.com/john-belushi-biopi ... GF-UvZuYqE

I like Ike Barinholtz quite a bit -- he's very good in the 2018 movie Blockers -- but boy, I just do not see him as a Dan Aykroyd type.
Oh, yeah, I don’t treat the original GB3 as a question mark. That movie would’ve been huge. Huge. If they had made it around 2009-2010? Indiana Jones is probably the closest we can get to an example of what GB3 *could have* done Box Office wise. And that 4th movie was terrible. Now it’s not a 1:1 and there are differences but it’s a massive 1980’s property that had been stuck in development hell for years. Ghostbusters 1 grossed more than Raiders & stole Temple of Dooms thunder in 1984. Ghostbusters 2 beat Indiana Jones 3 opening weekend record mere weeks after it had been set, before falling off a cliff due to bat-competition and poor word of mouth. Two beloved 1980s franchises that were massive phenomenon’s in their day and had sequels in development that audiences wanted to see for years. In audiences mind, I think Ghostbusters & Indiana Jones have similar levels of popularity. Both have extremely popular first films, and a sequel that didn’t do as well and people think of as lesser(tho I adore both). And yes, Jones has one more movie...but I don’t think that matters years down the line.

I don’t think your theory about the trilogy thing holds any water. It’s an interesting thought but people want to see what they want to see. You’re making it too complicated. People respond to what they know. It’s like not Ghostbusters was some small little movie. It had movies, cartoons, videos games, toys. I could *maybe* see your point if the story in Ghostbusters was serial in nature. But that’s not the case. Each film is its own thing. Plus...Ghostbusters plays all the time on Television. Plus after the amount of time that has passed between movies, it makes no difference. This isn’t some niche film.

Nostalgia is an extremely powerful thing. It’s warm and fuzzy and familiar. You tap into that and there’s no telling what can happen. And no, you are correct, GBA won’t be a phenomenon like the original. That doesn’t really happen anymore. Now movies play for a couple months and then that’s it. But it has the opportunity to be a huge blockbuster. I don’t know if it will be. It’s more likely to do middling “meh” numbers. Not great, not terrible. But there’s a chance & that’s worth something.
#4938562
I was 'meh' about Extreme GB when it came out, I was too old for it and it felt like it was aimed at people who grew up with GBII.

Gave it a rewatch during the run-up to ATC, and I actually really liked the stories and the way way ghosts were much more threats. They actually hurt or killed people.

The one with the evil genie where Eduardo turned into Kylies cat, with one of the others going: 'Wait. What did he wish for' was hilarious.
#4938563
Restoring the 1A is never gonna happen.

They don't give a smeg. Once a prop serves its purpose on screen its job is finished. Studios don't have the money to shell out on expensive restorations like that, especially if the only driving force behind it would be...goodwill? These are property owned by the studio. Whatever anyone here may think, the suits at the top don't care unless there is a dollar to be made.
deadderek liked this
#4938565
Dr.D wrote:Restoring the 1A is never gonna happen.

They don't give a smeg. Once a prop serves its purpose on screen its job is finished. Studios don't have the money to shell out on expensive restorations like that, especially if the only driving force behind it would be...goodwill? These are property owned by the studio. Whatever anyone here may think, the suits at the top don't care unless there is a dollar to be made.
I’m from the UK so forgive me if my knowledge isn’t up to speed but isn’t the Delorean (and a number of other movie cars) on display in the Peterson Museum?

Wouldn’t the GB cars be equally at home and possibly the star attractions there? Again I don’t know but I assume there is a charge for touring and viewing these cars - why couldn’t the Ecto’s be a part of that?
#4938570
GaudinosWheels wrote: August 25th, 2020, 8:37 am I’m from the UK so forgive me if my knowledge isn’t up to speed but isn’t the Delorean (and a number of other movie cars) on display in the Peterson Museum?

Wouldn’t the GB cars be equally at home and possibly the star attractions there? Again I don’t know but I assume there is a charge for touring and viewing these cars - why couldn’t the Ecto’s be a part of that?
One of the three DeLoreans produced for the production. Yeah.

Ecto-1 would certainly be right at home at a top-level automotive museum (or the Smithsonian), and other auto museums of lesser repute have done just that with mis-labeled Ecto-1 replicas...

But sony seems committed to keeping them even when there's nothing that can be done with them, or is being done with them.

There's a story that back when the cars were rusting away on the backlot, Aykroyd offered to buy them off of Sony, but the Sony turned down the offer. Chances are it's just a story, but either way, as long as the Ghostbusters property remains Sony's, they're not going to relinquish control of any of the materials attached to it.
Sav C, deadderek liked this
#4938575
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 4:54 amOh, yeah, I don’t treat the original GB3 as a question mark. That movie would’ve been huge. Huge. If they had made it around 2009-2010? Indiana Jones is probably the closest we can get to an example of what GB3 *could have* done Box Office wise. And that 4th movie was terrible. Now it’s not a 1:1 and there are differences but it’s a massive 1980’s property that had been stuck in development hell for years. Ghostbusters 1 grossed more than Raiders & stole Temple of Dooms thunder in 1984. Ghostbusters 2 beat Indiana Jones 3 opening weekend record mere weeks after it had been set, before falling off a cliff due to bat-competition and poor word of mouth. Two beloved 1980s franchises that were massive phenomenon’s in their day and had sequels in development that audiences wanted to see for years. In audiences mind, I think Ghostbusters & Indiana Jones have similar levels of popularity. Both have extremely popular first films, and a sequel that didn’t do as well and people think of as lesser(tho I adore both). And yes, Jones has one more movie...but I don’t think that matters years down the line.

I don’t think your theory about the trilogy thing holds any water. It’s an interesting thought but people want to see what they want to see. You’re making it too complicated. People respond to what they know. It’s like not Ghostbusters was some small little movie. It had movies, cartoons, videos games, toys. I could *maybe* see your point if the story in Ghostbusters was serial in nature. But that’s not the case. Each film is its own thing. Plus...Ghostbusters plays all the time on Television. Plus after the amount of time that has passed between movies, it makes no difference. This isn’t some niche film.

Nostalgia is an extremely powerful thing. It’s warm and fuzzy and familiar. You tap into that and there’s no telling what can happen. And no, you are correct, GBA won’t be a phenomenon like the original. That doesn’t really happen anymore. Now movies play for a couple months and then that’s it. But it has the opportunity to be a huge blockbuster. I don’t know if it will be. It’s more likely to do middling “meh” numbers. Not great, not terrible. But there’s a chance & that’s worth something.
Indiana Jones is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, though. Temple of Doom received some criticism compared to Raiders, for being a bit more mean-spirited, but then Last Crusade is pretty widely beloved. The "redheaded stepchild" nature of ToD is lessened because there was a crowd-pleasing third movie, and thus people naturally want more.

You yourself admit that Ghostbusters II had bad word of mouth. For the many members of the general audience who don't like the second movie, there is no reason to suspect they went home thinking, "well, I can't wait for a third movie, I'm sure they'll get it right." More likely, a huge portion of the audience went, "I guess you can't capture lightning in a bottle twice" or even "They should've quit while they were ahead." And, objectively, that is the end of that thought for at least 25 years, because no other films were made. The nostalgia -- admittedly very powerful -- forms around the one movie they liked, and doesn't necessarily include a desire for the story to continue. I must also concede that even though I thought it was unfairly maligned, the unpleasant discourse and poor reception of the 2016 movie probably pushed many people into "beating a dead horse" territory now that we're at Afterlife.

A 1999 success still would've been hugely dependent on how good the movie looked in execution, which we can never know. It would have to have not just been a movie that looked worth seeing, but a movie that looked better than Ghostbusters II. There wasn't any certainty to Murray committing, and there's no way Aykroyd, Ramis, and Hudson would've been enough. Let's not forget that Aykroyd had just had Blues Brothers 2000 bomb, another decades-later sequel missing his bigger co-star.

As for everything else, much like when we discuss canon, you can never assume the general public interacted with or cares about the stuff that isn't the movies. Some of the merch and the song, sure, but I doubt the majority of 18+ audiences (which is presumably most of the theatrical audience for Ghostbusters in 1984 in the context of it starring "SNL" cast members) ever watched the cartoons, which were for kids, or read any of the comic books, or played the games.

It doesn't have to be niche at all for the audience to cross the subjective, broadly-defined line of, "that's enough of that," and it would be unwise to underestimate how many went over the passive version of that line (it doesn't have to be someone actively opposed, just someone who was never invested in a third movie) back in 1989.

The one exception I would put in for this rule is scenarios where the sequel is roughly as well-received as the original, and they just don't make more movies. This obviously applies to Bill & Ted, which is also hugely boosted by the fact that Reeves' popularity is arguably higher than ever.
#4938576
Alphagaia wrote: August 25th, 2020, 7:22 am I was 'meh' about Extreme GB when it came out, I was too old for it and it felt like it was aimed at people who grew up with GBII.

Gave it a rewatch during the run-up to ATC, and I actually really liked the stories and the way way ghosts were much more threats. They actually hurt or killed people.

The one with the evil genie where Eduardo turned into Kylies cat, with one of the others going: 'Wait. What did he wish for' was hilarious.
Extreme Ghostbusters is better than Real Ghostbusters. That’s my opinion anyways. The one issue I have with EGB, is I wish the animation was of higher quality.

But damn...that show is scary. Deadliners? How did they get away with that in a kids show?

But I don’t think EGB feels too 90s at all. Besides the title? The music doesn’t feel dated in the way that RGB does. It’s quite scary at times, often funny.

I’d love nothing more than for Sony to announce a new Ghostbusters animated show that’s in continuity with RGB & EGB. Maybe just continue EGB. It’ll never happen, but I can dream.
deadderek liked this
#4938578
droidguy1119 wrote: August 25th, 2020, 11:32 am
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 4:54 amOh, yeah, I don’t treat the original GB3 as a question mark. That movie would’ve been huge. Huge. If they had made it around 2009-2010? Indiana Jones is probably the closest we can get to an example of what GB3 *could have* done Box Office wise. And that 4th movie was terrible. Now it’s not a 1:1 and there are differences but it’s a massive 1980’s property that had been stuck in development hell for years. Ghostbusters 1 grossed more than Raiders & stole Temple of Dooms thunder in 1984. Ghostbusters 2 beat Indiana Jones 3 opening weekend record mere weeks after it had been set, before falling off a cliff due to bat-competition and poor word of mouth. Two beloved 1980s franchises that were massive phenomenon’s in their day and had sequels in development that audiences wanted to see for years. In audiences mind, I think Ghostbusters & Indiana Jones have similar levels of popularity. Both have extremely popular first films, and a sequel that didn’t do as well and people think of as lesser(tho I adore both). And yes, Jones has one more movie...but I don’t think that matters years down the line.

I don’t think your theory about the trilogy thing holds any water. It’s an interesting thought but people want to see what they want to see. You’re making it too complicated. People respond to what they know. It’s like not Ghostbusters was some small little movie. It had movies, cartoons, videos games, toys. I could *maybe* see your point if the story in Ghostbusters was serial in nature. But that’s not the case. Each film is its own thing. Plus...Ghostbusters plays all the time on Television. Plus after the amount of time that has passed between movies, it makes no difference. This isn’t some niche film.

Nostalgia is an extremely powerful thing. It’s warm and fuzzy and familiar. You tap into that and there’s no telling what can happen. And no, you are correct, GBA won’t be a phenomenon like the original. That doesn’t really happen anymore. Now movies play for a couple months and then that’s it. But it has the opportunity to be a huge blockbuster. I don’t know if it will be. It’s more likely to do middling “meh” numbers. Not great, not terrible. But there’s a chance & that’s worth something.
Indiana Jones is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, though. Temple of Doom received some criticism compared to Raiders, for being a bit more mean-spirited, but then Last Crusade is pretty widely beloved. The "redheaded stepchild" nature of ToD is lessened because there was a crowd-pleasing third movie, and thus people naturally want more.

You yourself admit that Ghostbusters II had bad word of mouth. For the many members of the general audience who don't like the second movie, there is no reason to suspect they went home thinking, "well, I can't wait for a third movie, I'm sure they'll get it right." More likely, a huge portion of the audience went, "I guess you can't capture lightning in a bottle twice" or even "They should've quit while they were ahead." And, objectively, that is the end of that thought for at least 25 years, because no other films were made. The nostalgia -- admittedly very powerful -- forms around the one movie they liked, and doesn't necessarily include a desire for the story to continue. I must also concede that even though I thought it was unfairly maligned, the unpleasant discourse and poor reception of the 2016 movie probably pushed many people into "beating a dead horse" territory now that we're at Afterlife.

A 1999 success still would've been hugely dependent on how good the movie looked in execution, which we can never know. It would have to have not just been a movie that looked worth seeing, but a movie that looked better than Ghostbusters II. There wasn't any certainty to Murray committing, and there's no way Aykroyd, Ramis, and Hudson would've been enough. Let's not forget that Aykroyd had just had Blues Brothers 2000 bomb, another decades-later sequel missing his bigger co-star.

As for everything else, much like when we discuss canon, you can never assume the general public interacted with or cares about the stuff that isn't the movies. Some of the merch and the song, sure, but I doubt the majority of 18+ audiences (which is presumably most of the theatrical audience for Ghostbusters in 1984 in the context of it starring "SNL" cast members) ever watched the cartoons, which were for kids, or read any of the comic books, or played the games.

It doesn't have to be niche at all for the audience to cross the subjective, broadly-defined line of, "that's enough of that," and it would be unwise to underestimate how many went over the passive version of that line (it doesn't have to be someone actively opposed, just someone who was never invested in a third movie) back in 1989.

The one exception I would put in for this rule is scenarios where the sequel is roughly as well-received as the original, and they just don't make more movies. This obviously applies to Bill & Ted, which is also hugely boosted by the fact that Reeves' popularity is arguably higher than ever.
You sort of betray your own point. Temple of Doom was widely critiqued and not well liked by General audiences. And yet..Indiana Jones 3 comes along and has a huge opening weekend and makes a lot of money. (Which is weird to me because I think Temple of Doom is much better than Last Crusade. But Last Crusade is an audience pleaser thru and thru. It’s weird that GB2 was criticized for being a carbon copy of GB1 when Last Crusade was praised despite being a Raiders of the Lost Ark copy. But I digress...)

There’s something you might be overlooking here. The love of concept and characters. Is every James Bond movie a winner? Heck no. But then the next one opens years after and it’s huge. Look at Skyfall compared to Quantum of Solace. And Ghostbusters 2 didn’t do as well, not because ONLY poor word of mouth, but Batman. People forget that. They picked the worst time to open.


This idea that because Ghostbusters had 2 movies and not 3 and so it’s not really a franchise in people’s mind is unfounded to me. It seems like your grasping a straws a bit there. I don’t say that to insult you or to be mean, just that the logic of it really doesn’t make much sense to me. You’re giving people far too much credit lol. If there was a poster that said “Ghostbusters 3 coming soon” that had the GB logo holding up 3 fingers, the response would be “Oh cool! I can’t wait to see that. I hope it’s as good as the first one”. The response wouldn’t be “If only Ghostbusters was a sustained franchise with 3 films. I loved the first one, but didn’t enjoy the second one as much, count me out”. That’s not how these things work.

People love Ghostbusters. People love Indiana Jones. But they want Harrison Ford, and Steven Spielberg and John Williams. With Ghostbusters they want Dan, Bill, Harold and Ernie. Plus with the passage of time their fondness only grows. Ghostbusters 2 is far more popular now than it was. But most people remember that first movie. That’s what they bring with them. An extremely positive reaction will always hold more sway than a mildly negative one. Every time. How many bad meals have you had at McDonald’s? But people return again and again.

Oh, and you can’t compare Blues Brothers 2000 or Blues Brothers to Ghostbusters. Blues Brothers is a great movie. I love it. But let’s be honest, no one, and I mean no one, was dying for a sequel there. Blues Brothers grossed, what? 55ish million? 60 million? A tidy sum for 1980. Ghostbusters did 230 million. For those that don’t know, here’s a reference, it was the highest grossing movie up to that point NOT directed/produced by either George Lucas or Steven Spielberg. It made more than Raiders of the Lost Ark, Back to The Future, Gremlins, Temple of Doom, Godfather.

Ghostbusters lends itself well to sequels.

Just one more point and I admit this is purely anecdotal. Where I live theatres are up and running and showing a lot of older classic movies. It’s been great for being able to see classics on the big screen. The theatre I go to shows the same trailers, every time, before one of these classic movies. It’s stuff like Top Gun 2, Tenet and Ghostbusters Afterlife. I remember seeing the trailer for GB16 in theatres a few times. The difference in reaction for the GBA trailer and GB16 trailer is like night & day. There’s a moment in the GBA trailer when people realize this isnt just any movie but a Ghostbusters sequel and the collective realization & reaction gives me chills just thinking about it. The GB16 trailer had people groaning. That’s pretty special.
pizzarat, deadderek liked this
#4938580
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 1:32 pmYou sort of betray your own point. Temple of Doom was widely critiqued and not well liked by General audiences. And yet..Indiana Jones 3 comes along and has a huge opening weekend and makes a lot of money.
The point was that there was a positively-received follow-up to Temple of Doom, and thus, for almost as long as I've been alive, the Indiana Jones movies were always considered as a trilogy, a unit. The VHS tapes and DVDs were packaged together -- there was never any question as to whether or not someone seeing them for the first time might skip one. When there are only two movies and one has a negative rep, and there isn't a third one that is more well-liked to soften that blow, the negative reception of that one sequel inevitably becomes passive evidence that they made a good movie and it didn't take off as a series.

(I also think it's really baffling that you would bring up James Bond, a series that has close to 30 entries, in a discussion of whether more sequels cements something as an enduring franchise regardless of the quality of individual entries, since that's...a perfect example of this very idea...)
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 1:32 pmThere’s something you might be overlooking here. The love of concept and characters. With Ghostbusters they want Dan, Bill, Harold and Ernie.
This, more than anything, is what I believe people who felt a third movie would've been a smash hit are overvaluing. I genuinely do not believe a good 80% of casual moviegoers are that invested in the characters. I will grant that they were invested in the actors -- up to a point, and that point helps illustrate that they were not that invested in Ghostbusters as a story or as a character piece.

As fans, we know how Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis, and Reitman all contributed to the script in their own way (and of course Ernie's performance made his character memorable). However, I think even you would admit that the general public's interest for the 1999 movie would have been disproportionately affected by Murray's absence. Even now, for people who have only seen the trailer for Afterlife and missed the media coverage, I imagine the #1 question is "Is Bill Murray in it?" It's hard to make a case that people were dying to hear what happened to the characters or what the story would be when so much of the interest hinges on one cast member.

I do think the concept had value as something that could be reinvigorated and revived, which is why I thought a reboot was a great idea.
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 1:32 pmThis idea that because Ghostbusters had 2 movies and not 3 and so it’s not really a franchise in people’s mind is unfounded to me. It seems like your grasping a straws a bit there. You’re giving people far too much credit lol. If there was a poster that said “Ghostbusters 3 coming soon” that had the GB logo holding up 3 fingers, the response would be “Oh cool! I can’t wait to see that. I hope it’s as good as the first one”. The response wouldn’t be “If only Ghostbusters was a sustained franchise with 3 films. I loved the first one, but didn’t enjoy the second one as much, count me out”.
You're the one overcomplicating it. It's just "The first one was great, but I didn't like the second one very much." Most people would probably say "I hope this one's better," but that's far from "I can't wait to see it," plus at this point you also have to factor in, "I didn't like the reboot," or "isn't everyone old?"
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 1:32 pmHow many bad meals have you had at McDonald’s? But people return again and again.
Ah, yes, McDonald's, that famous burger chain that was really popular for five years in the 1980s and then disappeared for 25 years, but eventually came back and is now picking up where it left off before.
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 1:32 pm There’s a moment in the GBA trailer when people realize this isnt just any movie but a Ghostbusters sequel and the collective realization & reaction gives me chills just thinking about it. The GB16 trailer had people groaning. That’s pretty special.
I have seen the trailer in theater a couple of times and there wasn't really been much of a reaction either way. I will admit that I heard some scoffing at the Ghostbusters (2016) trailer.
#4938581
droidguy1119 wrote: August 25th, 2020, 6:44 pm
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 1:32 pmYou sort of betray your own point. Temple of Doom was widely critiqued and not well liked by General audiences. And yet..Indiana Jones 3 comes along and has a huge opening weekend and makes a lot of money.
The point was that there was a positively-received follow-up to Temple of Doom, and thus, for almost as long as I've been alive, the Indiana Jones movies were always considered as a trilogy, a unit. The VHS tapes and DVDs were packaged together -- there was never any question as to whether or not someone seeing them for the first time might skip one. When there are only two movies and one has a negative rep, and there isn't a third one that is more well-liked to soften that blow, the negative reception of that one sequel inevitably becomes passive evidence that they made a good movie and it didn't take off as a series.

(I also think it's really baffling that you would bring up James Bond, a series that has close to 30 entries, in a discussion of whether more sequels cements something as an enduring franchise regardless of the quality of individual entries, since that's...a perfect example of this very idea...)
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 1:32 pmThere’s something you might be overlooking here. The love of concept and characters. With Ghostbusters they want Dan, Bill, Harold and Ernie.
This, more than anything, is what I believe people who felt a third movie would've been a smash hit are overvaluing. I genuinely do not believe a good 80% of casual moviegoers are that invested in the characters. I will grant that they were invested in the actors -- up to a point, and that point helps illustrate that they were not that invested in Ghostbusters as a story or as a character piece.

As fans, we know how Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis, and Reitman all contributed to the script in their own way (and of course Ernie's performance made his character memorable). However, I think even you would admit that the general public's interest for the 1999 movie would have been disproportionately affected by Murray's absence. Even now, for people who have only seen the trailer for Afterlife and missed the media coverage, I imagine the #1 question is "Is Bill Murray in it?" It's hard to make a case that people were dying to hear what happened to the characters or what the story would be when so much of the interest hinges on one cast member.

I do think the concept had value as something that could be reinvigorated and revived, which is why I thought a reboot was a great idea.
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 1:32 pmThis idea that because Ghostbusters had 2 movies and not 3 and so it’s not really a franchise in people’s mind is unfounded to me. It seems like your grasping a straws a bit there. You’re giving people far too much credit lol. If there was a poster that said “Ghostbusters 3 coming soon” that had the GB logo holding up 3 fingers, the response would be “Oh cool! I can’t wait to see that. I hope it’s as good as the first one”. The response wouldn’t be “If only Ghostbusters was a sustained franchise with 3 films. I loved the first one, but didn’t enjoy the second one as much, count me out”.
You're the one overcomplicating it. It's just "The first one was great, but I didn't like the second one very much." Most people would probably say "I hope this one's better," but that's far from "I can't wait to see it," plus at this point you also have to factor in, "I didn't like the reboot," or "isn't everyone old?"
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 1:32 pmHow many bad meals have you had at McDonald’s? But people return again and again.
Ah, yes, McDonald's, that famous burger chain that was really popular for five years in the 1980s and then disappeared for 25 years, but eventually came back and is now picking up where it left off before.
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 1:32 pm There’s a moment in the GBA trailer when people realize this isnt just any movie but a Ghostbusters sequel and the collective realization & reaction gives me chills just thinking about it. The GB16 trailer had people groaning. That’s pretty special.
I have seen the trailer in theater a couple of times and there wasn't really been much of a reaction either way. I will admit that I heard some scoffing at the Ghostbusters (2016) trailer.
God damn it. I wrote an entire response to this and by the time I hit “submit” my browser crashed. Ah well. Damn safari. It seems like we are going to have to agree to disagree here. I think your premise (regarding this 2 VS trilogy thing)is flawed & there’s no point going any further on that.

There’s a constant that’s be true since the dawn of time. People respond to what they know & like. Mix that with the built in nostalgia and the love people have for GB as a concept and it’s characters(something else I think your thinking is flawed on) and you have a recipe for success(had GB16 not complicated things). It’s not anymore complicated than that.

And yeah I agree Murray’s absence would’ve negatively affected the films Boxoffice. But when push came to shove I think he would’ve shown up.

Also. Just a heads up. My McDonald’s line wasn’t meant to be taken so literal lol. But then again, Ghostbusters didn’t disappear did it? It’s on TV all the time. Streaming on Netflix or Amazon Prime. Cartoons, video games. I mean come on.


Again, the closest example we have to a movie of Ghostbusters pedigree going away and coming back after 20 years is Indiana Jones. Again, it’s not a 1:1, but it’s close. Or look at Jurassic Park, 2 poorly received sequels and then Jurassic World comes in and does huge business. Now I don’t think Ghostbusters would do Jurassic World business but it just goes to show what nostalgia and time do.

More than anything? It’s just a gut feeling I have. Now I know eyes will roll at that but that’s just the way it is. Ghostbusters is just one of those movies EVERYONE loves. That buys a lot of goodwill. The sheer amount of people that were pissed off about GB16 tell us this is important to a lot of people.
#4938583
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 8:02 pmThere’s a constant that’s be true since the dawn of time. People respond to what they know & like. Mix that with the built in nostalgia and the love people have for GB as a concept and it’s characters(something else I think your thinking is flawed on) and you have a recipe for success(had GB16 not complicated things). It’s not anymore complicated than that.
Let me put it another, much simpler way: consider the possibility that the combination of Ghostbusters II being underwhelming to many (and for at least a decade, routinely pointed to as an example of a mediocre sequel to a great movie), followed by no new movies for 25 years might represent exactly the same kind of discouraging "complication" to most audiences as you refer Ghostbusters (2016) as, and then you have that movie on top of those things.
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 8:02 pmAnd yeah I agree Murray’s absence would’ve negatively affected the films Boxoffice. But when push came to shove I think he would’ve shown up.
I mean, maybe, but that's kind of dodging the point. Although, as you said, your post was eaten, so.
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 8:02 pmGhostbusters didn’t disappear did it? It’s on TV all the time. Streaming on Netflix or Amazon Prime. Cartoons, video games. I mean come on.
Again, the cartoons meant something to people who were kids then, like me. A good 75% of the gamers I know who aren't Ghostbusters fans never played the game -- I'm a huge fan and I didn't even beat it, although I played the first couple of levels.

The original movie remaining popular can be, but is not necessarily the same kind of nostalgia that drives the success of a new movie. We've previously touched on Terminator. I would happily grant that audiences have not responded enthusiastically to a Terminator film for at least two movies now (a good example of the kind of "complication" mentioned above), but audiences rejecting those new movies has not had any impact on the level of love they have for The Terminator and especially T2.
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 8:02 pmMore than anything? It’s just a gut feeling I have. Now I know eyes will roll at that but that’s just the way it is. Ghostbusters is just one of those movies EVERYONE loves. That buys a lot of goodwill. The sheer amount of people that were pissed off about GB16 tell us this is important to a lot of people.
At the end of the day, my core point is that people can love a property or IP and not necessarily be a shoo-in just because they make more of it (like, uh, Ghostbusters 2016). I certainly am. I'll see whatever Ghostbusters movies and TV shows they make until the day I die. But that's because I'm a fan, and fans behave way differently than the public.

Before Kingpin yells at us, I'll let this one go. Not that there's much else to talk about.
Last edited by tylergfoster on August 26th, 2020, 10:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
pizzarat, robbritton, Alphagaia and 2 others liked this
#4938584
droidguy1119 wrote: August 25th, 2020, 9:26 pm Before Kingpin yells at us, I'll let this one go. Not that there's much else to talk about.
Don't make me wag my finger reproachfully. I will do it!
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 8:02 pmGhostbusters didn’t disappear did it?
No, but it almost nearly did.
Try finding any merchandise in the period of 1993-1997 that either wasn't second-hand, or old stock being sold off. Had someone not come up with Extreme Ghostbusters, we might not've seen anything new until the movies were released on DVD in 1999.
We're lucky Sony didn't decide to wash its hands entirely back then, there's an alternate timeline where 1999 marked the final entry in the Ghostbusters franchise with the release of those DVDs.

I'm glad we don't live in that timeline.
As much as this one currently sucks.
RichardLess wrote: August 25th, 2020, 8:02 pmThe sheer amount of people that were pissed off about GB16 tell us this is important to a lot of people.
It also tells us that some people are over-invested in it.
I eat, sleep, breathe Ghostbusters... So much that I probably am that "annoying Ghostbusters fan" where it's always at the front of my mind even if I'm not always talking about it... But some of those fans and their reactions to the 2016 movie make me look relaxed in comparison. If your response is akin to "you've ruined my childhood!", you are over-invested in something.
#4938589
Ectojeff88 wrote: August 26th, 2020, 9:51 am Anyone have an update on their Hasbro wand shipping? Nothing from Hasbro Pulse for me yet.
Says here it will ship on 1st of September, but no hit on my creditcard yet, so take that with a big chunk of salt.

Also, people still going out of their way to shit on ATCthreads just suck.
robbritton liked this
#4938598
Davideverona wrote: August 26th, 2020, 1:12 pm I bought the Afterlife Ecto 1 plate. I'm trying to figure out a way to hang it on the wall. Any ideas?
Hooks using the built-in mounting spots, or framed, either like a shadow box or a print/photograph/poster.
#4938599
Kingpin wrote: August 26th, 2020, 1:50 pm
Davideverona wrote: August 26th, 2020, 1:12 pm I bought the Afterlife Ecto 1 plate. I'm trying to figure out a way to hang it on the wall. Any ideas?
Hooks using the built-in mounting spots, or framed, either like a shadow box or a print/photograph/poster.
I like the "framed" option. Wonder if there are some "plates frame" the exact size of the Ecto plate.


Just listened to the Spengler's Neutrona Wand review. They say that even the box is featured in the movie. Was Egon having everything in storage? And why separate the wand from the pack? And why writing "Neutrona wand" on the box?
SeikoVoiceNote29 liked this
#4938600
Davideverona wrote: August 26th, 2020, 2:00 pm
Kingpin wrote: August 26th, 2020, 1:50 pm

Hooks using the built-in mounting spots, or framed, either like a shadow box or a print/photograph/poster.
I like the "framed" option. Wonder if there are some "plates frame" the exact size of the Ecto plate.
I couldn't say. Something I was planning to do with not just my Ecto-1 and Ecto-1A plates, but my collection of US plates was frame 2-3 plates within a single frame on black backing.
Davideverona wrote: August 26th, 2020, 2:00 pmWas Egon having everything in storage? And why separate the wand from the pack? And why writing "Neutrona wand" on the box?
1) So it would seem.
2) It'd be less likely to go off by accident in storage.
3) So it'd be easy to track what was in the box, and to locate if he suddenly needed it.
Davideverona liked this
  • 1
  • 369
  • 370
  • 371
  • 372
  • 373
  • 677

Using rip-stop cotton and custom dye for each char[…]

The journey from commonplace to Ecto-75.

Whole car is great but the pack trolly...how?

Proton Props???

If anyone here is still pondering ordering from th[…]

I haven't done the new update to the Spirits Unlea[…]