Ghostbusters Afterlife (Jason Reitman)

pixelburp

I like it; hard not to see the obvious influence of IT, Stranger Things and all those classic stories of smalltown kids discovering mysteries in old abandoned mine/factory/neighbours house. Heck even Bumblebee ploughed that particular furrow. I actually like this direction, taking Ghostbusters out of NY ensures fewer comparisons with the previous movies, and latches onto a revival of a style of narrative that had gone out of fashion until recently.

No doubt a second trailer will spoil everything, for those lamenting the lack of original cast cameos

mloc123

Oh look, a Stranger things movie...

peteeeed

pixelburp wrote: »

I like it; hard not to see the obvious influence of IT, Stranger Things and all those classic stories of smalltown kids discovering mysteries in old abandoned mine/factory/neighbours house. Heck even Bumblebee ploughed that particular furrow. I actually like this direction, taking Ghostbusters out of NY ensures fewer comparisons with the previous movies, and latches onto a revival of a style of narrative that had gone out of fashion until recently.

No doubt a second trailer will spoil everything, for those lamenting the lack of original cast cameos

i think so

El Duda

Imagine how much more exciting this would be if 2016 didn't happen.

silverharp

it looks good, but not really interested in seeing it, isn't it a bit like trying to sell Spy Kids to a James Bond fan?

pixelburp

silverharp wrote: »

it looks good, but not really interested in seeing it, isn't it a bit like trying to sell Spy Kids to a James Bond fan?

Is it though? Not like there isn't a market and interest in these Smalltown USA stories once more, and Stranger Things has shown there's a perfectly willing adult market for Kids Solving Mysteries.

It's definitely a hard turn form the schlubby Working Man's comedy style of those 80s movies, but if executed well it could work as a worthy "passing the torch" kind of tale. I mean apart from anything else, that version of New York from the original films just doesn't exist anymore, so you can't simply "do" a third Ghostbusters film anyway.

B.A._Baracus

I dunno about that trailer. It doesn't look bad. But dan aykroyd, bill murrary and ernie hudson are alrady announced to be in it.
Before the trailer it seemed like that they'll be passing the torch but still in it. Now just seems like cameos.

Really is stranger things meets ghostbusters.

pixelburp

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I dunno about that trailer. It doesn't look bad. But dan aykroyd, bill murrary and ernie hudson are alrady announced to be in it.
Before the trailer it seemed like that they'll be passing the torch but still in it. Now just seems like cameos.

Really is stranger things meets ghostbusters.

Given the kids discover the abandoned equipment, and there's unlikely to be a manual, I suspect the Act 2 to 3 change will be something like: the kids getting in over their heads, with the Big Threat too much for them to handle. They lose heart. Elsewhere, news of Strange Goings On hit the news and 3 heads turn to the TV, spotting something familiar on the screens. Cut to the arrival of the Original Crew at Summerville (haha, might as well call it Smalltown), here to help save the day, while teaching the kids how to use their unlicensed nuclear accelerators

johnny_ultimate

It really looks like a Jason Reitman movie, will all the subdued and serious lighting... and then boom, time to bust some mother****ing ghosts.

Very curious how that mix will go down :pac:

Penn

I liked the trailer a lot. It's the first trailer, it's job is just to set the scene and tone, and I think it did that pretty well. Never had as much love or affinity for Ghostbusters anyway (probably because I saw Ghostbusters 2 way more times than 1), but looking forward to this so far anyway.

TheIrishGrover

Well that was totally underwhelming and out of character with all the other Ghostbusters films. Say what you want about the "reboot", tonally it was much more inline with the first film. I actually really enjoyed the reboot but because of mouth-breathing, mom's-basement-dwelling woman-fearing losers, we have this teen Stranger Ghostbuster Things......

Goodshape

Trailer looks more interesting than I'd expected.

pixelburp

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Well that was totally underwhelming and out of character with all the other Ghostbusters films. Say what you want about the "reboot", tonally it was much more inline with the first film. I actually really enjoyed the reboot but because of mouth-breathing, mom's-basement-dwelling woman-fearing losers, we have this teen Stranger Ghostbuster Things......

Naw can't agree with that; the 2016 was tonally all over the place, veering from poor ad-lib comedy (the "gag" about wantons), to odd risqué stuff (the "anti Irish fence" remarks) to whatever the 'F Chris Hemsworth's character was meant to be.

The 80s film had a dry, sarcastic sense of humour mixed with its "working stiffs" point of view. The 2016 was a hot mess that bore no resemblance to that approach of the older films. Not the cinematic cancer some would have you think, but the script was all over the place.

Goodshape

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Well that was totally underwhelming and out of character with all the other Ghostbusters films. Say what you want about the "reboot", tonally it was much more inline with the first film. I actually really enjoyed the reboot but because of mouth-breathing, mom's-basement-dwelling woman-fearing losers, we have this teen Stranger Ghostbuster Things......

The [other?] reboot was a lot sillier than the original two films, I thought.

This looks somewhat different again but, just judging by the trailer, maybe a bit closer to the "serious apart from the silly bits" tone of the first.

Agent Coulson

I thought it was the trailer for a new Tremors for the first minute.


I liked it.

peteeeed

It's a slow reveal, no hint of a baddie or the original crew, if they showed everything, everyone would complain they showed everything

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

Is it though? Not like there isn't a market and interest in these Smalltown USA stories once more, and Stranger Things has shown there's a perfectly willing adult market for Kids Solving Mysteries.

It's definitely a hard turn form the schlubby Working Man's comedy style of those 80s movies, but if executed well it could work as a worthy "passing the torch" kind of tale. I mean apart from anything else, that version of New York from the original films just doesn't exist anymore, so you can't simply "do" a third Ghostbusters film anyway.

I havnt actually watched Stranger Things yet but one would be assuming that what people like watching on TV, matches their taste in what they pay to see in the cinema?

Im not saying it wont be successful, it will pull in parents with tween-age kids I’d guess , but it seems a bit twee for the teenage market? Yet seems too different despite the memberberries kit for anyone that grew up seeing the originals back in the 80’s?

mrmorgan

Looks great- far better than that pile of rubbish they made a few years ago!!

pixelburp

silverharp wrote: »

I havnt actually watched Stranger Things yet but one would be assuming that what people like watching on TV, matches their taste in what they pay to see in the cinema?

Im not saying it wont be successful, it will pull in parents with tween-age kids I’d guess , but it seems a bit twee for the teenage market? Yet seems too different despite the memberberries kit for anyone that grew up seeing the originals back in the 80’s?

One thing I'll say about Stranger Things, it is NOT twee. Season 3, the most recent just gone, is full of some pretty goopy, gross gore that wouldn't look out of place in a horror movie from that period (in fact it's possibly the most child unfriendly season yet). So the main characters being children doesn't / shouldn't preclude older audiences from enjoying it, if the approach is right.

Thing is, the original 1989 Ghostbusters sequel was a total clone of the original movie, and people hated it. In fact generally when sequels just ape previous iterations there's a pushback. It's a vicious narrative cycle; that urge to return to the well of the familiar rather than evolve or grow. The Watchmen TV show is a fantastic, current example of a sequel done right. Utterly its own beast, yet still wedded to the same themes and concepts of the original piece.

Can't speak to demographic appeal but I'll tip my hat to a sequel that's trying to properly move the story on - and out of NY. Plus if you gotta leave the city, then mashing the Goonies or ET into the Ghobusters world is a pretty smart play. It's all 1980s cultural touchpoints, so they match.

coolisin

I like it as a trailer.
Nothing massive revealed, just a drop to say ok we have a tone of this.

I like the build up and feel to alot of movies, at the end of the day it needs to connect with the younger audience of today that love IT and Stranger things first and build nostalgia to the older audience second.

Tony EH

mrmorgan wrote: »

Looks great- far better than that pile of rubbish they made a few years ago!!

Yeah, this is what's going to happen with this film. A lot of people are going to go easy on it, because it probably won't be the weak mess that the 2016 'Ghostbusters' was.

But that trailer doesn't tell me that this movie will be any good either.

Ghostbusters died in 1984. It should stay dead.

B.A._Baracus

Tony EH wrote: »

... Ghostbusters died in 1984. It should stay dead...

Ah now, come on Ghostbusters 2 was not that bad :pac:
The movie also spawned one of the greatest NES games of all time... Ghostbusters 2 (The european version not the bad american one)

Manach

I enjoyed watching the trailer - a nice blend of nostalgia and a new setting.

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

One thing I'll say about Stranger Things, it is NOT twee. Season 3, the most recent just gone, is full of some pretty goopy, gross gore that wouldn't look out of place in a horror movie from that period (in fact it's possibly the most child unfriendly season yet). So the main characters being children doesn't / shouldn't preclude older audiences from enjoying it, if the approach is right.

Thing is, the original 1989 Ghostbusters sequel was a total clone of the original movie, and people hated it. In fact generally when sequels just ape previous iterations there's a pushback. It's a vicious narrative cycle; that urge to return to the well of the familiar rather than evolve or grow. The Watchmen TV show is a fantastic, current example of a sequel done right. Utterly its own beast, yet still wedded to the same themes and concepts of the original piece.

Can't speak to demographic appeal but I'll tip my hat to a sequel that's trying to properly move the story on - and out of NY. Plus if you gotta leave the city, then mashing the Goonies or ET into the Ghobusters world is a pretty smart play. It's all 1980s cultural touchpoints, so they match.

The first movie was bottled lightning , a sequel of matching quality would have been tough, the original movie just had a perfect combination of likeable characters that played off each other well and where the special effects were secondary because they knew got the tension levels right during the movie. I don’t see this sequel recapturing the magic, it will probably be too on the nose with standard fare special effects and forgettable characters. Random thought here but maybe this could have been a Buffy style TV setup then it would have time for the cast to grow on the audience?

Tony EH

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Ah now, come on Ghostbusters 2 was not that bad :pac:

Sarcasm detected!!!!

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

The movie also spawned one of the greatest NES games of all time... Ghostbusters 2 (The european version not the bad american one)

Never played that.

Tony EH

silverharp wrote: »

The first movie was bottled lightning , a sequel of matching quality would have been tough, the original movie just had a perfect combination of likeable characters that played off each other well and where the special effects were secondary because they knew got the tension levels right during the movie. I don’t see this sequel recapturing the magic, it will probably be too on the nose with standard fare special effects and forgettable characters. Random thought here but maybe this could have been a Buffy style TV setup then it would have time for the cast to grow on the audience?

'Ghostbusters' is an example of an accident that people keep trying to recreate, without having a clue just how the accident actually happened.

1984 was the right time and the right place for it to work and it will just never work again.

pixelburp

silverharp wrote: »

The first movie was bottled lightning , a sequel of matching quality would have been tough, the original movie just had a perfect combination of likeable characters that played off each other well and where the special effects were secondary because they knew got the tension levels right during the movie. I don’t see this sequel recapturing the magic, it will probably be too on the nose with standard fare special effects and forgettable characters. Random thought here but maybe this could have been a Buffy style TV setup then it would have time for the cast to grow on the audience?

I dunno, I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a constraint of budget here that'll force a focus on character-action: like, the 2016 film had a $150 million budget!! That's an insane number & controversy aside, the film was always destined to struggle with that kind of budget to claw back.

Looking at this trailer, it seems to have an emphasis on physical props and its cast, with some pretty standard "Smalltown" location work. There are no big SNL stars to pay for - bar Paul Rudd and maybe those cameos from the original cast - so if I had to take a stab, I'd say the budget here is more around the $50 million mark. So just from that point of view, this won't need to set the world alight to be a success. And has been shown time & time again, nothing concentrates creativity like the enforced restrictions of time & money.

I'm actually quietly confident here, and maybe it's just cos I remain a sucker for Small Town (Supernatural) Mysteries, but so far nothing I've read or seen has suggested this is a turkey in waiting.

Dades

Ghostbusters II is much loved in my house. All opinions are valid.


Really liked this trailer. Change of setting avoids outright comparison to the original.

I bet the next trailer will change the tone completely to something more comic. Paul Rudd looks perfect to be the keystone in all this.

B.A._Baracus

Tony EH wrote: »

Sarcasm detected!!!!
Never played that.

Nah. Wasn't been sarcastic. I actually enjoy the second movie.
Yeah it was a great game. Got overshadowed on youtube and the internet because the Americans got a totally different game themselves. A very subpar game.

Sad Professor

I also like Ghostbusters II. It's more of the same and that's totally fine with me.

New film looks good. After 2016 they needed to go in a totally different direction. A familiar premise perhaps but a reliable one provided Reitman doesn't screw it up.

faceman

What the hell was that? This is going to be a very different GB movie, that’s for sure. It doesn’t look exciting.

Look at the trailers for the first 2 movies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u4FHmId-Y0

And....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnzH75FlwvU

They’re exciting and look fun.

Also add my name to that hat for “I like Ghostbusters 2” club.

The Black Oil

El Duda wrote: »

Imagine how much more exciting this would be if 2016 didn't happen.

Hadn't a clue what you were on about and thought you meant 2016 politics. Says a lot about the previous film, I suppose.

I liked this trailer, good tone and small town vibe. Enough of a teaser for winter buzz in advance of a summer release. Please let that corn field (maize? Hello to A Quiet Place and everything else) chase be real and not bloody CGI, though. Good that they held back a little on the tune too.

CastorTroy

It shows enough to tell people how it's coming back. It seems to be stuff from the first half of the film. I don't think I'll watch the next trailer as I plan on seeing the film and that's the one that'll show more.

I'm assuming in that trailer

That was Slimer in the trap since we see him being chased.

Personally out of the Stranger Things kids, Finn is probably the one I find most annoying. But he's the one doing the best it seems

fluke

That trailer looks fine and ticks all the reverential boxes to win back some folk, especially after Answer the Call seemed to essentially dismiss the existence of 1 and 2. As for it not being reminiscent of the originals, 2 tried to replicate 1, with mixed results. If they wanna try something else why not. There’s a market there, at least AtC showed what doesn’t work.

I’m sure it won’t decanonise 2. In fact I reckon it’ll bend over backwards to acknowledge both the 80s films, and maybe even the original cartoon.

Oafley Jones

Seems like a solid trailer; but also looks like this Ghostbusters is no longer in the comedy genre.*

*Insert Ghostbuster 2016 joke here.

Calhoun

Looks like a great trailer only thing I'm slightly cautious is that it looks a bit like a teenage focused film.

Frank Bullitt

I teared up seeing the Spengler uniform.

**** you all, I can't wait for this one.

Oafley Jones

Part of me is worried that this is actually a comedy. A decent comedy trailer is hard, while pulling the ol' nostalgia strings is piss easy.

Venom

The trailer kicked my interest for the movie into overdrive and left me wanting more, all without giving the entire movie away which is what a good trailer is supposed to do.

PsychoPete

That trailer didn't really interest me, if I don't see Ray,Peter and Winston wielding proton packs I'll be incredibly disappointed

faceman

Gintonious wrote: »

I teared up seeing the Spengler uniform.

**** you all, I can't wait for this one.

Ah here. Don’t believe that for a second.

pixelburp

Someone elsewhere noticed a pretty awesome deep cut within that trailer: a pan across a table in the discovered basement revealed an assortment of "spores, molds and fungus"

ThePott

faceman wrote: »

Look at the trailers for the first 2 movies

TBF that first trailer is well after it's initial release. The original trailer for Ghostbusters is drier that you'd expect as far as comedy and isn't a particularly great trailer. Also add me to the group that like Ghostbusters 2.

As for this trailer, it's totally fine. It basically confirms my suspicions. This is less of a Ghostbusters sequel than people expect. I think anyone expecting Bill Murray in a proton pack fighting ghosts will be disappointed. Maybe, I'm wrong but I think this is really more of a Jason Reitman movie than a Ghostbusters movie. Had this been any other trailer, I'd have little interest in it but having the name attached has my attention if not interest. Although I do like the allusions to the original and it seems at least faithful to the original in some aspects. Works as a teaser but doesn't especially feel like a Ghostbusters movie, Tremors is an appropriate comparison and was what popped in my head. I also agree that it looks like Sony are not putting much money into this after getting their fingers burned in 2016.

Roar

Sad Professor wrote: »

I also like Ghostbusters II. It's more of the same and that's totally fine with me.

Another GB2 fan here. I was obsessed with it as a kid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncGHiVKJh0Y

Trailer for the new movie is fine by me. Didn’t excite me massively, but it looks fine. Probably could have done without Finn Wolfhard in it, having just watched the two It movies recently. But that’s probably just me.

Assume they’re saving Murray/Ackroyd/Hudson reveals for the next trailer - or will the filmmakers even include them in the marketing?

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

I dunno, I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a constraint of budget here that'll force a focus on character-action: like, the 2016 film had a $150 million budget!! That's an insane number & controversy aside, the film was always destined to struggle with that kind of budget to claw back.

Looking at this trailer, it seems to have an emphasis on physical props and its cast, with some pretty standard "Smalltown" location work. There are no big SNL stars to pay for - bar Paul Rudd and maybe those cameos from the original cast - so if I had to take a stab, I'd say the budget here is more around the $50 million mark. So just from that point of view, this won't need to set the world alight to be a success. And has been shown time & time again, nothing concentrates creativity like the enforced restrictions of time & money.

I'm actually quietly confident here, and maybe it's just cos I remain a sucker for Small Town (Supernatural) Mysteries, but so far nothing I've read or seen has suggested this is a turkey in waiting.

a smaller budget would be a positive for sure, would help relying on bloated effects

silverharp

A short overview of the history of the original movies, how they came about, amazed it ever made it out the gate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPJxEBh-S8g

Drumpot

I’m cautiously curious . I like Paul Rudd and think this could be a fun, proper sequel with a bunch of nostalgia. Low expectations but I just want to have a laugh.

DvB

Just watched the trailer there now, have to say I didn't think after the 2016 film that anything remotely Ghostbusters related would pique my interest again but lo & behold, I like the look of this a lot.

w/s/p/c/

Looking forward to this. Perfect teaser trailer.

Glad its taking the story out of the city and into Smalltown USA. I am liking the Stranger Things/Goonies/Super 8 vibes from it.

From reading interviews with Jason Reitman he said that he always had the story of a 12 year old girl with strong links to the original characters created, it then evolved into a family. He thought that he would never get the chance to make a Ghostbusters film and use the story (obviously after the 2016 s*itshow).

From reading some of the comments on Facebook from what look like super fans the town its set in has big links to the original story too. I would think the appearance of the original cast will be little more than cameos? Hopefully they have a big part to play.

razorblunt

I enjoyed it. Didn't give too much away and built up the nostalgia nicely.

My only gripe is that I think the focusing on kids, in small towns, is a bit overdone currently. Same can be said for Finn Wolfhard, the original was a hit with kids despite having adults in the role, so they may have been room for something similar. Teens/College kids may even have sufficed.