Discuss Ghostbusters: Afterlife, released on November 19, 2021 and directed by Jason Reitman.
#4972331
RichardLess wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 9:12 pm Gozer is back because it’s foretold. There we go! This is something I feel like in the original movies they would’ve gotten into the weeds in a bit. Gozer comes around every so often. But…why? To destroy the world…again? What stopped her those other times? So…does she truly want to destroy the world or is there another goal? Why would it be foretold Gozer comes around and destroys the world…a bunch of times. Unless that’s not what being foretold. That’s the kinda thing I’m talking about. Now I’m sure a bunch of you all have some theories on that. But that doesn’t mean it’s addressed.
Earlier scripts of the first movie I think made it very apparent initial ideas for Gozer was Old Testament God-Sodom and Gomorrah, where Gozer destroyed civilizations that became too decadent. But that changed a bit by the final version. If someone could foretell the most amicable years in which Gozer could manifest, that person foretold its defeat? Perhaps the implication was apocalypse is like a cuckoo clock -- stopping it once, doesn't mean it's not going to happen again, it'll keep circling around until you break the parts inside. Or however Gozer came to be constrained by the ritual either of its own volition or another party i.e. a sorcerer felt like it wasn't a given Gozer would succeed the first time around and cursed it to keep trying to return should it fail the first time it manifests. Like in the TVG canon, it's implied Gozer's role was something else in ancient times and Tiamat and her cult were responsible for the latter and banishing it, then it became known as Gozer the Traveler, the Destructor, etc.

RichardLess wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 9:12 pm Let’s say it’s true that Gozer doesn’t do the destructor bit because Pheobe interrupts her. After she’s back in one piece…the GB’s shoot at her and she does the uncrossing the streams thing. I’m interested why things didn’t progress the way they did in the original film where she disappears. When things don’t happen the way they should and no one comments on it and the movie doesn’t comment it…I’m left wondering why?
Some lowly mortals disrespected her and she's gonna become whole again and kill them all then she's going back to the natural order of the ritual, making someone choose the Destructor. Gods can be vindictive like that. The Ghostbusters interfered so she added them to the kill list. She wasn't done with getting revenge.
#4972333
Sav C wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 9:22 pm Ok, so tonight I decided to return to the Fallon and Meyers interviews to see if anything would jump out at me that wouldn't have before seeing Afterlife. I'm not sure that anything really did, however I noticed something interesting about the infamous exchange between Dan and Bill on Seth's show. It's hard to make out with Dan and Bill talking over each other, but after Dan praises Harold and Bill shuts him down, it seems Bill engages in a little bit of projection. Like I said, it's hard to make stuff out with them talking over each other, but I think the following transcript is accurate:

Bill: You could have said that a long time ago and he would have liked that.
Dan: I did--I always talked him up.
Bill: He would've loved... He would've loved to have heard that.

It seems to me--and I'm no psychologist--that Bill regrets not showing enough gratitude for Harold, and was (likely unintentionally) suggesting that Dan hadn't, either. That's not to defend Bill saying "that's enough" or anything. The exchange just strikes me as interesting, as if Bill regrets not praising Harold while he was still with us.
Yeah Dan has always, *always* been extremely generous when talking about his writing partners.

I’ve always been interested in Dan & Harold’s writing partnership. How did they manage it? Especially on GB2. We all know about the infamous Martha’s Vineyard sessions on the first film. But I’d love to know…did they write separately and then merge their pages, write together like a band would, did Harold write down the consonants & Dan the vowels? lol

Writing credits and their placement aren’t arbitrary. There are reasons for how they appear as they appear. The first film, if I remember correctly, has the credits appear that Dan’s name is first & Harolds is underneath it. That’s mostly because Dan is the originator of the idea, wrote the original draft solo, & Harold was brought in and they re worked it. On the second film the writing credits appear side by side only this time you’ll notice Harold’s name first & Dan’s 2nd. This one has always interested me. This implies Harold wanted credit before Dan. Why? Because Alphabetically Dan’s name would come first. Names appearing side by side usually means all drafts were written as a team. With Harold’s name appearing before Dan’s we can assume Harold was the creative lead on the project.

I’ve actually heard rumours over the years that GB2 had some uncredited writing work from Al Franken. That apparently he wrote some of the reshoot scenes. I have no idea if that’s true or not. Apparently he has a cameo somewhere but I’ve never found it. Perhaps one of the upcoming behind the scenes projects will illuminate this. That book & the GB2 documentary.
Sav C liked this
#4972334
I took Shandor being alive again quite literally from the 'dead rise from their grave's line from the first movie and what is quoted on the signs near Egon's house.

Also, we don't need every detail spelled out. Every GB falls apart if you think about it hard enough. For me Gozer tossing the GB on the edge instead of over it still bugs me, but I handwaved it.

Gozer sitting on its throne while it's minions are wrecking havoc raised an eyebrow but the reason I gave above handwaved it.

Gozer asked Phoebe if she offered herself as sacrifice, by the way.

When the OGB arrived it became personal and more hands on. Plus, I liked not having (another) Destructor form.

In short: does this movie require more handwaving when compared to the original?
For sure. I'd say about an equal amount as GB2. Which has some weird convenient for the plot set-ups, but eh, but most of it I can handwave away.

Still wish we can see the deleted scenes though, cause I'm sure some reasons have been cut out of the plot, just like ATC.

Anyways, if you cannot handwave the little inconsistenties, that's fine as well. Gave the movie a 7 for a reason.
Last edited by Alphagaia on September 4th, 2022, 1:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
#4972339
Alphagaia wrote: September 4th, 2022, 1:41 am I took Shandor being alive again quite literally from the 'dead rise from their grave's line from the first movie and what is quoted on the signs near Egon's house.

Also, we don't need every detail spelled out. Every GB falls apart if you think about it hard enough. For me Gozer tossing the GB on the edge instead of over it still bugs me, but I handwaved it.

Gozer sitting on its throne while it's minions are wrecking havoc raised an eyebrow but the reason I gave above handwaved it.

Gozer asked Phoebe if she offered herself as sacrifice, by the way.

When the OGB arrived it became personal and more hands on. Plus, I liked not having (another) Destructor form.

In short: does this movie require more handwaving when compared to the original?
For sure. I'd say about an equal amount as GB2. Which has some weird convenient for the plot set-ups, but eh, but most of it I can handwave away.

Still wish we can see the deleted scenes though, cause I'm sure some reasons have been cut out of the plot, just like ATC.

Anyways, if you cannot handwave the little inconsistenties, that's fine as well. Gave the movie a 7 for a reason.
I don’t know if I’ve ever asked this before or if you’ve answered it, if I have my apologies, but what would you give the other movies on a scale of 1-10?

For me the first film is a 10. It’s perfect.
Second film is a 7.5-8
GB2016 is a 4
GBA is a 5.5-6. No I’d give it a 6. That car ghost catch is one of the better action scenes I’ve seen in the last 5 years. It’s pretty darn near perfect. The energy? The editing? Music? It’s pure Ghostbusters it deserves a 6 just for that sequence.. Honestly? The movie works pretty damn well up until then and then the car bust happens and it’s like “oh shit. This is awesome” but then it starts going downhill right when they are arrested. We get the phone call…and yeah.


Yeah I agree on the deleted scenes. We actually have a astonishingly small amount of knowledge about how many deleted scenes there even are. With the other movies we have scripts and comic books and books and VFX making of articles. I don’t think this movie had any of that stuff did it? Or not as in depth. We had the art book, which was cool. But I don’t think I’ve seen a comprehensive deleted scene list.
#4972340
jonogunn wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 1:17 am In regards to the crossing the streams Egon’s theory that “it would be bad” was incorrect once proven in the GB1 finale that it didn’t kill them.

So it stands to reason they must have used the technique again and again in future busts. Perhaps maybe even tweak the packs to make the technique less volatile?

Man i just want firehouse news so we can focus on that. So many possibilities, so many opportunities to answer all our unanswered questions. I don’t think there’s anything else they can squeeze out of Afterlife other than an extended version
If that were the case then they would have crossed the streams on Vigo. I did have an issue that crossing the streams is a new go-to when it was just used in the first film as a last resort to cause a nuclear explosion to close the gates. I was sitting in the theater when the OGs crossed the streams on Gozer in Afterlife and I was thinking to myself "I....I can't be the only one that paid attention in the first movie? Did I miss something?"
deadderek, jonogunn liked this
#4972342
GB: 10 (9,5 if I'm really honest as a perfect movie should have zero nitpicks).
The rest: 7
The numbers changed as I got older, GB2 was higher first, ATC extended edition was higher first as well, but I can find multiple faults which each sequel in different areas for each of them.
Still enjoy them and the settings, mind you! Neither of them managed to be as new and creative and flow so well as the first without repeating/rehashing stuff from the first movie.
#4972344
RichardLess wrote: September 4th, 2022, 12:29 pm Yeah I agree on the deleted scenes. We actually have a astonishingly small amount of knowledge about how many deleted scenes there even are. With the other movies we have scripts and comic books and books and VFX making of articles. I don’t think this movie had any of that stuff did it? Or not as in depth. We had the art book, which was cool. But I don’t think I’ve seen a comprehensive deleted scene list.
Aside from the Art and Making of Ghostbusters: Afterlife book you mentioned, there a couple articles on VFX work like Egon, creature shop, and the Tested bts featurettes. There's the upcoming book A Convenient Parallel Dimension that covers the whole franchise but may have some new Afterlife nuggets. I was hoping for a canon tie in book like how ATC had Ghosts From Our Past.

I tried my best to compile and maintain a deleted scene list here at this Afterlife section...

EDIT: There was going to be U.S. Baskin-Robbins promotion. The unused art was posted by Daniel Brown.
https://www.dbrownified.com/#/baskinrob ... s-signage/
jonogunn, RichardLess liked this
#4972346
RichardLess wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 9:12 pmI’m interested why things didn’t progress the way they did in the original film where she disappears. When things don’t happen the way they should and no one comments on it and the movie doesn’t comment it…I’m left wondering why?
Well, let's see...

1) Phoebe arouses Gozer's intrigue. It seems pretty reasonable to assume Gozer rarely encounters humans who readily approach it and seemingly without any evident fear. Chances are Gozer would've eventually gotten to the "Choose and Perish" spiel but Zuul getting trapped knocked the needle off of the record.

2) Between that moment and snatching the trap off of Phoebe, Gozer's №1 priority is to release Zuul and to restore the missing half of its essence. Once whole, Gozer's aim is now to indulge itself in taking its time killing Phoebe, Callie and the kids, but-

3) "Hey flat top!"
Whether Gozer remembers this remark from the previous time it manifested in our world is anyone's guess, but per Winston's remark, it seems Gozer does remember the Ghostbusters, and its attention turns to them. I postulate (because that's all I can do) that Gozer doesn't go through the normal spiel because A) it remembers the Ghostbusters and what they did to it during their previous encounter, and B) It would much rather smush them like it was going to do to Phoebe and co for what they did when they last crossed paths.

4) So Gozer waits to see what the Ghostbusters are going to do, knowing it underestimated them the last time they encountered each other. There's a bit of banter, and then the guys fire at Gozer, and then cross the streams...

5) It knocks Gozer a little off its game, but despite the potential pain it's able to free itself, sending the guys flying. Gozer goes in to finally kill them, but-

6) Blam! Gozer gets hit by the stream from Phoebe's Pack.
Gozer fires off her lightning to finish Phoebe off, but the boosted power of Egon's suped-up Pack counters it, and it's clear from the visuals that Gozer's full attention is now focused on trying to trying to kill Phoebe.

7) With Gozer distracted, the guys start firing, ensnaring it, preventing it from being able to invoke the next part of the ritual.

8 ) Finally, Callie and Trevor activate the Trap field, and the spirits of the dead miners comprising Gozer are pulled away, and Zuul and Vince are taken out of the equation.


If Gozer hadn't played with its food, it could've invoked the "choose and perish" clause, and likely had someone in the group inadvertently pick a new destructor form.

But Gozer is like so many villians: overconfident, underestimating and single-minded.
RichardLess wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 9:12 pmAnd Shandor. He’s more like a Zombie than a ghost. Or not even a zombie since he’s speaking & seems fine.
I'm willing to say he's a revenant, an animated corpse (in this case, animated either by Gozerian energy or by the substantial surge of PKE created by the suicide pit in the mine).
RichardLess wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 9:12 pmIt’s one of those things were this movie needed to have the standard Ghostbusters human asshole. Like Peck. Maybe a Shandor relative.
I think the danger is if we had a Shandor relative being behind all this, it's invoking a trope that's already been seen with Peck and Hardemeyer, and it's something we've seen in other films (Ben Ravencroft from Scooby Doo! And the Witch's Ghost is a perfect example of this).

The Real Ghostbusters gave us a lot of interesting human antagonists, but not in every episode... And to have had four movies each with a human antagonist who substantially gets in the Ghostbusters' way would get rather repetitive.
RichardLess wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 9:12 pmIt just doesn’t feel like “Ghostbusters” is all.
I'll give you it does feel a little different compared to the previous films, but then even Ghostbusters II is very different in feel to Ghostbusters. We may be seeing the tonal evolution of the franchise as it accommodates the old-guard audience as well as the audience of newcomers.
mrmichaelt, deadderek, WCat2000 and 3 others liked this
#4972352
Kingpin wrote: September 4th, 2022, 5:27 pm
RichardLess wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 9:12 pmI’m interested why things didn’t progress the way they did in the original film where she disappears. When things don’t happen the way they should and no one comments on it and the movie doesn’t comment it…I’m left wondering why?
Well, let's see...

1) Phoebe arouses Gozer's intrigue. It seems pretty reasonable to assume Gozer rarely encounters humans who readily approach it and seemingly without any evident fear. Chances are Gozer would've eventually gotten to the "Choose and Perish" spiel but Zuul getting trapped knocked the needle off of the record.

2) Between that moment and snatching the trap off of Phoebe, Gozer's №1 priority is to release Zuul and to restore the missing half of its essence. Once whole, Gozer's aim is now to indulge itself in taking its time killing Phoebe, Callie and the kids, but-

3) "Hey flat top!"
Whether Gozer remembers this remark from the previous time it manifested in our world is anyone's guess, but per Winston's remark, it seems Gozer does remember the Ghostbusters, and its attention turns to them. I postulate (because that's all I can do) that Gozer doesn't go through the normal spiel because A) it remembers the Ghostbusters and what they did to it during their previous encounter, and B) It would much rather smush them like it was going to do to Phoebe and co for what they did when they last crossed paths.

4) So Gozer waits to see what the Ghostbusters are going to do, knowing it underestimated them the last time they encountered each other. There's a bit of banter, and then the guys fire at Gozer, and then cross the streams...

5) It knocks Gozer a little off its game, but despite the potential pain it's able to free itself, sending the guys flying. Gozer goes in to finally kill them, but-

6) Blam! Gozer gets hit by the stream from Phoebe's Pack.
Gozer fires off her lightning to finish Phoebe off, but the boosted power of Egon's suped-up Pack counters it, and it's clear from the visuals that Gozer's full attention is now focused on trying to trying to kill Phoebe.

7) With Gozer distracted, the guys start firing, ensnaring it, preventing it from being able to invoke the next part of the ritual.

8 ) Finally, Callie and Trevor activate the Trap field, and the spirits of the dead miners comprising Gozer are pulled away, and Zuul and Vince are taken out of the equation.


If Gozer hadn't played with its food, it could've invoked the "choose and perish" clause, and likely had someone in the group inadvertently pick a new destructor form.

But Gozer is like so many villians: overconfident, underestimating and single-minded.
RichardLess wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 9:12 pmAnd Shandor. He’s more like a Zombie than a ghost. Or not even a zombie since he’s speaking & seems fine.
I'm willing to say he's a revenant, an animated corpse (in this case, animated either by Gozerian energy or by the substantial surge of PKE created by the suicide pit in the mine).
RichardLess wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 9:12 pmIt’s one of those things were this movie needed to have the standard Ghostbusters human asshole. Like Peck. Maybe a Shandor relative.
I think the danger is if we had a Shandor relative being behind all this, it's invoking a trope that's already been seen with Peck and Hardemeyer, and it's something we've seen in other films (Ben Ravencroft from Scooby Doo! And the Witch's Ghost is a perfect example of this).

The Real Ghostbusters gave us a lot of interesting human antagonists, but not in every episode... And to have had four movies each with a human antagonist who substantially gets in the Ghostbusters' way would get rather repetitive.
RichardLess wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 9:12 pmIt just doesn’t feel like “Ghostbusters” is all.
I'll give you it does feel a little different compared to the previous films, but then even Ghostbusters II is very different in feel to Ghostbusters. We may be seeing the tonal evolution of the franchise as it accommodates the old-guard audience as well as the audience of newcomers.


Yeah I agree we see a lot of villains over confident and underestimating an opponent. But how many of those villains have a combined screen time of maybe 6 minutes & have said about as many sentences as I can count with on both hands? Usually we get to know those villains, get a feel for their personality, what makes em tick etc

Gozer is less a character here and more of a plot device.

See stuff like “Gozer wants to indulge itself” & “Gozer waits to see what the Ghostbusters will do” & “Gozer is playing with its food” & “Gozer wants Revenge”…instead of coming off that way to me it’s comes off as “contrivance” “contrivance” “contrivance”. I don’t see much character motivation from Gozer. I don’t see vengeance anywhere in there. But again when we get into this head canon stuff if it works for you? God speed. I wonder if I’d be more forgiving to this sort of stuff if the movie had more of a comedy bend to it. Sometimes in comedies it’s enough if a story or plot point happens for a joke set up.

it’s interesting you say that about the human bad guy. There’s a fine line between being repetitive & being a touchstone of a franchise. And I think that’s on a per fan basis on which is which. Kinda like how no ghostbusters movie feels right without a montage…I think, like everything, the context is important. I think I see see the human bad guys as a touch stone of the franchise... There’s always ways of doing things in fresh interesting ways. James Bond has his “Bond girl” …you know it’s that sort of idea. Ghostbusters 2 does it in an interesting way because, yes, the first thing everyone thinks of is Hardmeyer but we also have Janosz. And Janosz steals the movie. You don’t always need them do the same things the same way. Maybe the human antagonist if someone we trust at first & then they do a heel turn in the 3rd act, maybe the movie makes a joke out of how there is always a human bad guy & does it in a meta way. Copying what’s been done isn’t the idea. That’s never a good idea. But you can do a spin on the old with a dash of something fresh.

A revenant eh? That’s interesting. I dig that. Suddenly the Leo Dicaprio movie’s title makes a lot more sense in a poetic way.

Yes this movie is def a tonal change. I agree. They are going with less of a comedy edge and into your standard modern blockbuster tone. I don’t blame them. Comedy rarely does well internationally so if they can take the more comedic element out of the movie, less depends on the movie succeeding or failing by virtue of its laughs. Ghostbusters 2 is an interesting example because it’s very different and yet… not. It still somehow feels like a Ghostbusters movie despite the lack of 1980s NYC grit & grime, lack of smoking, less swearing. But it’s still funny, still scary, still interesting. Granted…I wonder if I’d feel that way had I not grown up with the movie.
#4972364
Alphagaia wrote: September 4th, 2022, 10:22 pm Also, Miner and Taxi ghost are kinda the same thing as the Shandor Split right? Noticed his blood is replaced with ectoplasm by the way.
I'd say "No" - the Taxi and Miner ghosts are very clearly ectoplasmic forms without a traditional physical body. That's most definitely Shandor's body, it's just been reanimated by Gozer's arrival in our world.

I'd also go as far to say the "slime" we see when he's ripped apart are his internal juices... The absence of blood is clearly a product of the film's 12-rating.
RichardLess wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:24 amI wonder if I’d be more forgiving to this sort of stuff if the movie had more of a comedy bend to it.
Maybe, but I feel Jason went the right direction in downplaying the comedy.
My concern is that had he gone for more overt comedy then it would've undermined the way it was trying to handle Egon and Harold's deaths.
RichardLess wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:24 amI wonder if I’d be more forgiving to this sort of stuff I think I see see the human bad guys as a touch stone of the franchise...
If they bring something new to make them more than just a carbon copy of what's come before in the franchise. Ghostbusters II is an interesting study of this.

Hardemeyer is just another Peck, his motivations are a little different but he's a variation of a theme.

Janosz, while potentially being a riff on Vince Clortho/Zuul, is actually the more interesting of GBII's human antagonists (which you've touched on in your post).

He's Vigo's servant, but he still retains enough free will to work his own angle within Vigo's benevolence, as well as to have grown weary of Vigo's droning monologues.
#4972366
jonogunn wrote: September 5th, 2022, 1:55 am I watched one of those “reaction to first time watching ghostbusters!” Video by a couple of 20 year olds. They watched gb 1, 2 and after life and they even said that gb2 felt very different from gb1. He even said he liked the change in gb2
It’s funny you mention that. I don’t usually do the whole “reaction” video thing because the few that I had seen were so obviously fake and over the top it turned me off, but there was one YouTuber that kinda got me into it. Her channel is “Popcorn in Bed” & she’s reacted to all the GB movies minus the reboot & as a GB fan it’s so awesome to see someone whose never seen the movie respond to it in all the right ways. Laughing at all the right moments. I really recommend checking out her GB reactions. She really dug GBA. I was worried that it would be one of those situations where they are use to modern effects and movie making and so it would be a constant barrage of “look at those cheesey effects! They are so bad”. But it’s not that at all. Her reaction to the arms coming out of the chair in GB1 is priceless.
SpaceBallz, jonogunn, GuyX liked this
#4972375
Kingpin wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:36 pm Also, Miner and Taxi ghost are kinda the same thing as the Shandor Split right? Noticed his blood is replaced with ectoplasm by the way.

I'd say "No" - the Taxi and Miner ghosts are very clearly ectoplasmic forms without a traditional physical body. That's most definitely Shandor's body, it's just been reanimated by Gozer's arrival in our world.
Yes, for the Taxi Driver Ghost, he was obviously trapped and put in the unit and had an P.K.E. wisp form as we saw it shoot into the taxi's exhaust pipe. What fascinates me the most about these two is that it is easy to mis-classify them as Class 3 entities because they are the ghosts of people but we don't know their identities. However, Class 3 and 4 on the traditional movie version class system generally accepted by fans, are only for complete manifestations (i.e. the ghost looks like a person with all appendages and you'd mistake for a person like the Fort Detmerring ghost). But the Miner and Taxi ghosts are incomplete manifestations shown by their grotesque zombie-like forms. So at most they are just high-functioning Class 2's that can only perform a loop of obsessive repetition (i.e. the miner goes to get coffee at the local restaurant before setting off to work, the driver accepts fares and drives them to their destination) and interesting enough can switch to a corporeal form perhaps in part as a function of fulfilling their repeating behavior (being able to hold a cup of coffee, driving a car) or they are so incomplete from a cognitive standpoint, they don't know they are not alive and unconsciously assume a semi-corporeal form. But I digress. They're ghosts that can take on an ethereal or corporeal form and Shandor is only a corporeal entity i.e. reanimated or as Kingpin suggested, a revenant.

Kingpin wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:36 pm Maybe, but I feel Jason went the right direction in downplaying the comedy.
My concern is that had he gone for more overt comedy then it would've undermined the way it was trying to handle Egon and Harold's deaths.
My thoughts exactly.
#4972387
Kingpin wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:36 pm
Alphagaia wrote: September 4th, 2022, 10:22 pm Also, Miner and Taxi ghost are kinda the same thing as the Shandor Split right? Noticed his blood is replaced with ectoplasm by the way.
I'd say "No" - the Taxi and Miner ghosts are very clearly ectoplasmic forms without a traditional physical body. That's most definitely Shandor's body, it's just been reanimated by Gozer's arrival in our world.

I'd also go as far to say the "slime" we see when he's ripped apart are his internal juices... The absence of blood is clearly a product of the film's 12-rating.
I agree with you on the ghost zombie thing, and while I agree the ectoplasm was also to keep the 12-rating, it still makes the ecoplasm canon.
#4972420
Kingpin wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:36 pm
Alphagaia wrote: September 4th, 2022, 10:22 pm Also, Miner and Taxi ghost are kinda the same thing as the Shandor Split right? Noticed his blood is replaced with ectoplasm by the way.
I'd say "No" - the Taxi and Miner ghosts are very clearly ectoplasmic forms without a traditional physical body. That's most definitely Shandor's body, it's just been reanimated by Gozer's arrival in our world.

I'd also go as far to say the "slime" we see when he's ripped apart are his internal juices... The absence of blood is clearly a product of the film's 12-rating.
RichardLess wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:24 amI wonder if I’d be more forgiving to this sort of stuff if the movie had more of a comedy bend to it.
Maybe, but I feel Jason went the right direction in downplaying the comedy.
My concern is that had he gone for more overt comedy then it would've undermined the way it was trying to handle Egon and Harold's deaths.
RichardLess wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:24 amI wonder if I’d be more forgiving to this sort of stuff I think I see see the human bad guys as a touch stone of the franchise...
If they bring something new to make them more than just a carbon copy of what's come before in the franchise. Ghostbusters II is an interesting study of this.

Hardemeyer is just another Peck, his motivations are a little different but he's a variation of a theme.

Janosz, while potentially being a riff on Vince Clortho/Zuul, is actually the more interesting of GBII's human antagonists (which you've touched on in your post).

He's Vigo's servant, but he still retains enough free will to work his own angle within Vigo's benevolence, as well as to have grown weary of Vigo's droning monologues.
I agree with the more “overt comedy” thing to an extent. Had they done it in the comedy style of GB2016? I think you might be right. That’s the more modern style where every one is Tony Stark/Bill Murray.

But where I disageee is that I also think if they wanted to honour Harold they would’ve gone with the laugh. It’s the strangest part of the movie when they end on a tear jerker moment which went into “For Harold”. Yes. “For one of the greatest comedy minds of the 20th century…we’ll send you home sad”.

It surprises me that wasn’t more of a criticism among the fanbase. Like I’ve said before I realize I’m in the minority here because I read countless “the end is so good, they honour Harold” etc. But do they? Do they really? Sure in a superficial way they do. I don’t know what the punchline or joke would be but I know the only way Harold would want people crying in a Ghostbusters movie is from wiping away the tears caused by laughter. That would’ve been a real “for Harold”.

Do we all like the way Egon goes out? I change my mind on this. I really dig the sitting in the chair just waiting for it…and the PKe meter lighting up indicating his spirit. I guess the ghost doesn’t technically kill Egon, right? He more dies of a heart attack? I guess? But sometimes I think…Egon should’ve gone out experimenting on something. Should Egon’s death be a laugh for the audience? In a “of course Egon would go out like that!” Sort of way? I dunno. There’s a lot I like about the opening..the imagery is solid. I guess I just don’t like him dying alone. The Ray/Egon friendship means so much to me. The stronger death is perhaps one Ray maybe feels responsible for or failed to prevent just in time.

I just feel like a big laugh as we fade to “For Harold” is so much more appealing & appropriate. I get chills thinking about it. It would be hard…but all worthwhile things are. And the risk of getting it wrong and going out on a lame joke? Huge. It’s easy to make people sad. It’s hard to make ‘em laugh.

The first idea that pops into my head is…not all the kids know what Egon looks like right? If they do change that so a couple of the, don’t. So maybe we start having this tender moment of Egon’s spirit saying goodbye to his family, everyone is starting to cry, it’s so sad. and all of a sudden out of nowhere Podcast blasts Egon’s ghost with the proton pack & traps Egon in a trap. It goes from this serene moment to this incredibly chaotic violent moment. Podcast is all freaked out and excited because he caught a ghost. Everyone is just giving him dagger eyes. Podcast, still covered in Marshmallow, gives an adorably naive delivery of “What?”

The camera zooms in to the smoking Egon trap. The smoke rises up into the night sky “For Harold”.
#4972421
I felt gutted and sad after the death of Egon in the cold open but the ending got me choked up, sad but not the same kind of sad as the cold open, and I felt a catharsis and sense of closure as Egon and Callie hugged and he peacefully dispersed. Then the end tags were well structured and placed to lift you up with a 1-2 punch of a comedic tag and an optimistic tag. A complete story about forgiveness was told and then shifted to a tease of a new beginning, a new chapter.

Your Podcast idea would have pissed me off. It would not have come off as reverent at all.
jonogunn, Alphagaia, Kingpin and 1 others liked this
#4972424
mrmichaelt wrote: September 7th, 2022, 12:55 am I felt gutted and sad after the death of Egon in the cold open but the ending got me choked up, sad but not the same kind of sad as the cold open, and I felt a catharsis and sense of closure as Egon and Callie hugged and he peacefully dispersed. Then the end tags were well structured and placed to lift you up with a 1-2 punch of a comedic tag and an optimistic tag. A complete story about forgiveness was told and then shifted to a tease of a new beginning, a new chapter.

Your Podcast idea would have pissed me off. It would not have come off as reverent at all.
Good! No…great! Exactly! You said it all right there. That’s the best compliment you could’ve given. “It would not come off as reverent at all”. This is Ghostbusters ladies and gents. Made by the most Irreverent filmmakers of the era. Are you forgetting who Harold Ramis was? “Reverential” was not his shtick. I’m sure you’ve seen his films. It took me less than a minute to think of that & im fairly confident he’d see the irreverent laugh as the better option. take my not even really thought out ending out of the equation, any irreverent ending with a laugh is something Harold would loved over a schmaltzy “story of forgiveness”. And if you can do both? Magic baby.

If you’ve never seen a Ghostbusters movie before I would say this ending works. It works within the context of the film if there were no other Ghostbusters films to go on. But as a movie with the title “Ghostbusters”? I think Bill Murray accidentally said the quiet part out loud when he questioned why it was ending with sadness Vs laughter.

It’s says a lot about the current state of movies that we are now complimenting moments added haphazardly to the end credits as a “1-2 punch”. I’ll give the Bill Murray/Signorney Weaver scene this…Bill was his most Venkman in the entire movie in that moment. I didn’t feel like a gun was being pointed at him just off camera.
#4972425
RichardLess wrote: September 7th, 2022, 12:15 amShould Egon’s death be a laugh for the audience?
No.

I get the idea you're setting down there, with Harold's strengths being in comedy, and I get your dislike of him dying alone - I don't generally like him dying alone and with his friendships broken either, but it's a reflection of reality that some people die alone rather than in their bed surrounded by family, and I think it creates a stronger core for the film's story.

I don't think playing the scene up for some kind of laugh would've worked at all. I also feel a laugh during the "for Harold" moment would've cheapened the whole thing.


RichardLess wrote: September 7th, 2022, 12:15 amand all of a sudden out of nowhere Podcast blasts Egon’s ghost with the proton pack & traps Egon in a trap.
Podcast watched the video of the New York news footage, and it's not a stretch to believe he possibly looked up other Ghostbusters-related videos online afterwards like Phoebe did.

Like michaelt, I would've been upset/angered by a concept such as the one you suggested.

EDIT:
RichardLess wrote: September 7th, 2022, 3:05 amIf you’ve never seen a Ghostbusters movie before I would say this ending works. It works within the context of the film if there were no other Ghostbusters films to go on. But as a movie with the title “Ghostbusters”? I think Bill Murray accidentally said the quiet part out loud when he questioned why it was ending with sadness Vs laughter.
I feel the only circumstances in which your proposed ending would work is if it was with a character who was deeply unlikeable, like Agent Dammers in Frighteners or Mrs. Deagle in Gremlins. Podcast trapping an antagonist human turned antagonist human? Much more palatable than him ignorantly trapping Egon.

Another reason I'm not a fan of the concept is what it does to Podcast. He's one of my two favourite characters from Afterlife, and I'm definitely not a fan of how it portrays him as careless and inconsiderate.
Alphagaia, mrmichaelt, jonogunn and 1 others liked this
#4972426
RichardLess wrote: September 7th, 2022, 3:05 am That’s the best compliment you could’ve given. “It would not come off as reverent at all”.
Don't twist my words.

RichardLess wrote: September 7th, 2022, 3:05 am If you’ve never seen a Ghostbusters movie before I would say this ending works. It works within the context of the film if there were no other Ghostbusters films to go on. But as a movie with the title “Ghostbusters”? I think Bill Murray accidentally said the quiet part out loud when he questioned why it was ending with sadness Vs laughter.

It’s says a lot about the current state of movies that we are now complimenting moments added haphazardly to the end credits as a “1-2 punch”. I’ll give the Bill Murray/Signorney Weaver scene this…Bill was his most Venkman in the entire movie in that moment. I didn’t feel like a gun was being pointed at him just off camera.
I've seen all Ghostbusters movies and this ending works very well for me. It closed 'chapter one' of the Ghostbusters saga, the Peter and Dana tag was the epilogue (and a brilliant full circle moment), and the Winston end tag was a prologue to the the start of 'chapter two'. Nothing came off as haphazard. I don't know what you interpret as a "1-2 punch" but my intent was the two end tags were a powerful combination that enhanced an already strong ending.
jonogunn, Alphagaia, Kingpin and 1 others liked this
#4972440
mrmichaelt wrote: September 7th, 2022, 4:24 am
RichardLess wrote: September 7th, 2022, 3:05 am That’s the best compliment you could’ve given. “It would not come off as reverent at all”.
Don't twist my words.

RichardLess wrote: September 7th, 2022, 3:05 am If you’ve never seen a Ghostbusters movie before I would say this ending works. It works within the context of the film if there were no other Ghostbusters films to go on. But as a movie with the title “Ghostbusters”? I think Bill Murray accidentally said the quiet part out loud when he questioned why it was ending with sadness Vs laughter.

It’s says a lot about the current state of movies that we are now complimenting moments added haphazardly to the end credits as a “1-2 punch”. I’ll give the Bill Murray/Signorney Weaver scene this…Bill was his most Venkman in the entire movie in that moment. I didn’t feel like a gun was being pointed at him just off camera.
I've seen all Ghostbusters movies and this ending works very well for me. It closed 'chapter one' of the Ghostbusters saga, the Peter and Dana tag was the epilogue (and a brilliant full circle moment), and the Winston end tag was a prologue to the the start of 'chapter two'. Nothing came off as haphazard. I don't know what you interpret as a "1-2 punch" but my intent was the two end tags were a powerful combination that enhanced an already strong ending.
I didn’t twist your words. Irreverence is exactly the right tone and exactly what I was going for. Unless the definition of the word has changed or you meant something else I didn’t twist your words at all and I find it odd you’d suggest I did. The fact that you literally used the exact word I was aiming for was the perfect compliment, despite you not liking the idea.

What I meant by the “1-2” punch was haphazard was…ya know what? I think I’m going to stop. It’s getting tiring going over the same points & being purely negative about this movie, as I’m sure you all would agree. I love going over this shit with a fine tooth comb but it’s just turning into “I didn’t like this” and “well I liked this”. Now I’m being accused of twisting words & who needs that? So that it. I’ve been in too many of these tit for tats that start devolving into other shenanigans to not recognize the signs of entrenched drama.

I didn’t like this movie. I’ve given my reasons. So I’m out,

Peace.

But I didn’t twist your words.
#4972441
Davideverona wrote: September 7th, 2022, 5:36 am What if Harold softened up his irreverence in his later years?
Yeah Groundhog Day isn’t exactly irreverent. Would Harold Ramis like the ending? Of course he would! He seemed like such a nice polite man. Yet part of me also thinks he would prefer a funny ending.

This movie has problems but that ending was so beautiful. Maybe a funny ending would’ve been a better tribute but it wouldn’t have been the better ending to this movie. If they went for a tribute to Harold over a ending that works for the movie as a whole that would open up a whole other can of worms

As for the end credits. Ghostbusters 2 had deleted scenes in its end credits. Is that “haphazard”? (What does that even mean? It wasn’t haphazard at all! It came right after Weaver’s credit. I think they wanted the audience to go “Wait. She wasn’t in this movie was she?” then surprise with a sweet little cameo)
Kingpin liked this
#4972447
In the original movie, Ramis did add the electric shocks to Peter's ESP test scene. Pretty sure that was in Making Ghostbusters. So that first end tag could be interpreted in part as a tribute to Ramis and his comedic style.

But you know it's like the friend you have who owns a cat, not every gift you give that friend has to be cat-related. The 3 previous movies pre-credits ended on them being cheered on by New Yorkers (ATC being the thanks on the various buildings), and Afterlife didn't end on the town throwing praise but that's a not a deal breaker either.
Kingpin, Alphagaia liked this
#4972448
RichardLess wrote: September 5th, 2022, 2:42 pm
jonogunn wrote: September 5th, 2022, 1:55 am I watched one of those “reaction to first time watching ghostbusters!” Video by a couple of 20 year olds. They watched gb 1, 2 and after life and they even said that gb2 felt very different from gb1. He even said he liked the change in gb2
It’s funny you mention that. I don’t usually do the whole “reaction” video thing because the few that I had seen were so obviously fake and over the top it turned me off, but there was one YouTuber that kinda got me into it. Her channel is “Popcorn in Bed” & she’s reacted to all the GB movies minus the reboot & as a GB fan it’s so awesome to see someone whose never seen the movie respond to it in all the right ways. Laughing at all the right moments. I really recommend checking out her GB reactions. She really dug GBA. I was worried that it would be one of those situations where they are use to modern effects and movie making and so it would be a constant barrage of “look at those cheesey effects! They are so bad”. But it’s not that at all. Her reaction to the arms coming out of the chair in GB1 is priceless.
“Popcorn in bed” I know her! I think someone on this website posted a link to her reaction awhile back. She’s awesome. Her Lord of the Rings reactions were so honest & sweet. She’s adorable.

Reaction videos are cool because who doesn’t love when they can show a friend a great movie for the first time & you’re looking over to see how they respond? I love that. I came to reaction videos during the pandemic. The pandemic hit a such a awful time for me. I just broke up with my girlfriend of 3 years around New Years 2020 and was living solo for the first time in years. So reaction videos was like this sad pathetic way to watch a movie with someone else. But you’re right, you have to be careful about all the fakes ones. They are pretty easy to spot though.

EDIT: I thought some of you might find this interesting. There’s a middle finger of sorts directed at Ghostbusters Afterlife in the very negative New York Times review of “Clerks 3”.

“As in, a new character is nicknamed Blockchain. Which is funnier than that character nicknamed Podcast in the most recent “Ghostbusters” movie, but, you know.”

It’s very annoying to me when critics do things like this. Podcast was not suppose to be a joke. It’s suppose to be a lame joke. It’s like complaining Pheobe’s “jokes” aren’t actually funny. No duh. That’s the point! Podcasts name is a character detail.

Jason had to know critics were going to come for that name though. I’d bet my 2005 lunch money on it. That he didn’t care and went with it anyway? Righteous!
#4974016
mrmichaelt wrote: October 29th, 2022, 11:14 pm Finn Wolfhard won a Saturn Award for Young Actor in a Film for his role in Afterlife.
https://ghostbustersnews.com/2022/10/29 ... rformance/
Can someone explain why McKenna wasn't even nominated and how Wolfhard won that one? Not saying he is a bad actor, but he sure as hell wasn't the best young actor in Afterlife and that list.
Kingpin, Sav C liked this
  • 1
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57

Be careful removing the Hasbro weathering using […]

Are these autographs legit?

This is over a month old, but none of the four sig[…]

Charlesworth Dynamics Trap Build

Hi All, The Trap is coming on, I've nearly finish[…]

I found a cool tube at Ollies discount outlet, and[…]