Ghostbusters Afterlife (Jason Reitman)

py2006

Well this is outta the blue but according to Mr Akroyd, this is looking a reality with a script that may even have Murray interested.

His comments on the female version are a body language experts dream.

Personally. I think Dan is a fantasist as it's not the first time in the last 20 odd years that he has said this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui5dM5lqIPM

https://youtu.be/ui5dM5lqIPM

pixelburp

Dan Akroyd has been talking about a Ghostbusters 3 for years, decades even at this stage; there has always been some script or another ready or nearing readiness. Bill Murray has also been 'interested' for years too. It's pure fantasy and honestly it reflects so badly on Akroyd at this stage, kinda makes him look a bit of a crank.

nullzero

I thought Dan Rather was dead...

Sad Professor

Akroyd will never let this go.

CastorTroy

I actually liked the recent one.

And with a quarter of this team no longer available, would we really want a new one?

p to the e

I'd say he's just keeping in the public eye to promote his tequila.

Johnmb

CastorTroy wrote: »

I actually liked the recent one.

And with a quarter of this team no longer available, would we really want a new one?

Yeah, I thought the recent one was very good, and would have liked to see some sequels to that. It was a shame about the undeserved hate it got, often from people who didn't even see it!

My worry about another sequel to the original is that they'll destroy the happy(ish) ending that the characters had at the end of the last movie in order to set it up, in the same way that they did for the first sequel.

nix

Jesus.. how could anyone like the recent one? It's that fucking dire it blows my mind someone even liked it.. or worse.. found it funny :eek::rolleyes::(

Johnmb

nix wrote: »

Jesus.. how could anyone like the recent one? It's that fucking dire it blows my mind someone even liked it.. or worse.. found it funny :eek::rolleyes::(

It was funnier than the second one, and was an excellent premise. Since it wasn't a sequel, they didn't have to remove the original characters. Since it wasn't a remake, they didn't have to reimagine the original characters. The originals were left alone. The new characters were interesting, and had a good dynamic for the most part. It had flaws, as every film does, but nothing to deserve the hate it got.

Johnmb

Johnmb wrote: »

It was funnier than the second one, and was an excellent premise. Since it wasn't a sequel, they didn't have to remove the original characters. Since it wasn't a remake, they didn't have to reimagine the original characters. The originals were left alone. The new characters were interesting, and had a good dynamic for the most part. It had flaws, as every film does, but nothing to deserve the hate it got.

I disagree. I found it to be absolutely atrocious

El Duda

Ghostbuster 2016 was an abomination.

Doctors room ghost

El Duda wrote: »

Ghostbuster 2016 was an abomination.

It was fcukin cat and that’s an insult to cats

pcadhain

Ghostbusters: the videogame from 2009 is Ghostbusters 3. Dan even said so himself. Well worth playing

Sad Professor

Seems this might actually be happening. Jason Reitman (whose father directed the first two) writing and directing. Aiming for a summer 2020 release. Doesn't indicate if original cast will be returning but it will have no connection to the 2016 remake.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/jason-reitman-ghostbusters-director-1203109264/

peteeeed

Sad Professor wrote: »

Seems this might actually happening. Jason Reitman (whose father directed the first two) writing and directing. Aiming for a summer 2020 release. Doesn't indicate if original cast will be returning but it will have no connection to the 2016 remake.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/jason-reitman-ghostbusters-director-1203109264/

"However, this new movie will follow the trajectory of the original film."
ME LIKEY

pixelburp

My god this project truly is a ghost itself, haunting the halls of Hollywood and its press, never finding rest or peace.

SharpshooterTom

Ghostbusters was great in the 80s, but why does it need to be brought back for?

Why are so many of the modern day films about rebooting old franchises from the 20th century? The whole industry is seemingly based on that now, I thought we all absolutely hated the 70s and 80s? (at least according the recent AH thread we did) We live a more multicultural world, with better views on LBGT rights, minority rights, views on women, yet we keep harking back to getting nostalgic about eras where this was not celebrated.

I'm sorry but I just this constant obsession with the 20th century nostalgia deeply troubling. The 70s, 80s and 90s were not popular decades for most people. We really should cut all music and entertainment off before the year 2000 now and just move on.

The Specialist

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Ghostbusters was great in the 80s, but why does it need to be brought back for?

Why are so many of the modern day films about rebooting old franchises from the 20th century? The whole industry is seemingly based on that now, I thought we all absolutely hated the 70s and 80s? (at least according the recent AH thread we did) We live a more multicultural world, with better views on LBGT rights, minority rights, views on women, yet we keep harking back to getting nostalgic about eras where this was not celebrated.

I'm sorry but I just this constant obsession with the 20th century nostalgia deeply troubling. The 70s, 80s and 90s were not popular decades for most people. We really should cut all music and entertainment off before the year 2000.

Give me 80's/90's entertainment any day over "Woke" bull****.

cherryghost

I thought the recent Ghostbusters film wasn't bad at all.

The Specialist

cherryghost wrote: »

I thought the recent Ghostbusters film wasn't bad at all.

Apart from being a massive steaming pile of feminist **** over the spirit of the originals?

nullzero

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

I'm sorry but I just this constant obsession with the 20th century nostalgia deeply troubling. The 70s, 80s and 90s were not popular decades for most people. We really should cut all music and entertainment off before the year 2000 now and just move on.

How is it troubling?
How were those decades "not popular" for "most people"?
Cutting all music and entertainment from before the year 2000 is the only troubling thing you mentioned. What complete nonsense.

nix

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

I'm sorry but I just this constant obsession with the 20th century nostalgia deeply troubling. The 70s, 80s and 90s were not popular decades for most people. We really should cut all music and entertainment off before the year 2000 now and just move on.

lol cut music prior to 2000? Are you ****ing insane? :rolleyes:

cherryghost wrote: »

I thought the recent Ghostbusters film wasn't bad at all.

Its not bad, its just utter garbage, you should probably watch more movies tbh (Actual good ones)

pixelburp

The Specialist wrote: »

Apart from being a massive steaming pile of feminist **** over the spirit of the originals?

Ghostbusters 2016 was as much 'feminist', as the 1984 film was some bastion of masculinity.

The social media frenzy was an embarrassment to all involved, but at the end of the day the resulting film was just another shallow, flat reboot. I've seen much, much worse at the cinema.

No more offensive than the Total Recall, (Tim Burton) Planet of the Apes, or King Kong remakes, to name three.

RayCun

Some people hate the recent Ghostbusters movie because it cast women in roles that men had ("feminazis stealing my childhood:mad::eek::mad::eek:" :rolleyes:), and doubled down by mocking losers on the internet (you know, the kind of people who complain about their childhood being stolen and political correctness gone mad).

It wasn't a great film - but rewatch the original and a lot of that was fairly crap. And like the original, the recent version had plenty of good moments (many involving Kevin)

nullzero

RayCun wrote: »

Some people hate the recent Ghostbusters movie because it cast women in roles that men had ("feminazis stealing my childhood:mad::eek::mad::eek:" :rolleyes:), and doubled down by mocking losers on the internet (you know, the kind of people who complain about their childhood being stolen and political correctness gone mad).

It wasn't a great film - but rewatch the original and a lot of that was fairly crap. And like the original, the recent version had plenty of good moments (many involving Kevin)

The issue was that the casting of women in thr roles was just tokenism by a corporation looking to piggyback the women =good men = bad modern culture. Nobody's childhood was hurtbinnthe making of it but i was still a misjudged and poorly executed idea.

RayCun

nullzero wrote: »

The issue was that the casting of women in thr roles was just tokenism by a corporation looking to piggyback the women =good men = bad modern culture.

Or, you know, an attempt to make a comedy with women in the lead roles, directed by someone who had just recently made an enormously successful comedy with women in lead roles, and casting two of the stars from that enormously successful comedy, plus one of the stars of the leading American television sketch comedy series.

Nah, you're right. It was all an attempt to brainwash men. Keep taking those red pills!

w/s/p/c/

The reboot is in the past, they tried to do something different and it didn't work, move on people!

Hopefully this continuation of the original franchise will work and the original cast will be in there mentoring on a new team. I see entertainment weekly have a little teaser trailer that Jason Reitman put together posted on their website. Shows the old Ecto-1 rusting away in a barn with some proton pack action....

johnny_ultimate

nix wrote: »

you should probably watch more movies tbh (Actual good ones)

Mod note: This kind of disrespectful comment is not welcome in this forum, please see the charter. You can debate someone without this sort of nonsense.

Any more like it will be actioned.

RayCun

w/s/p/c/ wrote: »

move on people!

:pac:

w/s/p/c/ wrote: »

Hopefully this continuation of the original franchise will work and the original cast will be in there mentoring on a new team.

Yeah, I'm sure Dan Ackroyd is on for that.
Bill Murray not so much.

Remind me, which one is funny?

w/s/p/c/

RayCun wrote: »

:pac:



Yeah, I'm sure Dan Ackroyd is on for that.
Bill Murray not so much.

Remind me, which one is funny?

I'm sure if enough cash is flashed, Bill Murray will play some part in this film.

Don't get your question on being reminded? Of what?

RayCun

w/s/p/c/ wrote: »

I'm sure if enough cash is flashed, Bill Murray will play some part in this film.

Don't get your question on being reminded? Of what?

I don't think Murray is interested in money at this stage. The history of Ghostbusters sequel talk is of Ackroyd being very enthusiastic and Murray pouring cold water on the idea.

Remind me which actor, Ackroyd or Murray, is the funny one. Who was responsible for the funny parts of the original movie, and who is still making good movies? Which one is essential to any sequel?

pixelburp

God I really, truly hope they don't bring the old crew back; there's few things more miserable in pop culture than watching doddery OAPs returning to a cherished part, decades after hanging up the uniform. Didn't work for me with Harrison Ford & Indiana Jones, Tom Baker & Doctor Who, and I remain sceptical about Patrick Stewart playing Captain Picard again.

Let the past stay in the past, and that goes double for the actors who played a role. Or indeed the Ghostbusters franchise; wish Sony would stop dredging up every damned IP on their books, desperate for an expanded universe to squeeze. The Jumanji sequel felt like an exception that proved the rule.

"The Ghost Corps", lordy. that was the real offensive thing about Ghostbusters 2016, the arrogant presumption of a franchise before its earned.

Mr E

That was quick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZta3a0EY98

peteeeed

I'm in

Frank Bullitt

The sounds and music in that alone make me like it.

The first was the movie of my youth, had the backpack toy and the firestation and toys.

Sign me ****in-g up.

ThePott

This seems to have come together awfully quick, no mention of cast yet which is interesting. I could maybe see Murray coming back if it's Jason Reitman, I mean he's an artsy director which Murray seems to only ever do nowadays so that might coax him. That being said, I've heard enough about Ghostbusters 3 and all that to know better. The game was the real Ghostbusters 3 it always will be especially with Harold Ramis gone.

Hard to know whether this is worth being excited about until we know more although it definitely has my interest but I'll wait till cast announcements and some footage or story details to gauge my excitement.

On the topic of Ghostbusters (2016), it was an awful unfunny movie with some very minor redemptions but let's not act like the female cast are solely responsible for that, there was a lot of issues with that movie not least of which was the actors. It would have been garbage with any cast with that script in my opinion and Sony botched the marketing for it which made things even worse and more divisive.

RayCun

I was reading David Foster Wallace's essay on Terminator 2 last week, and you could apply it to Ghostbusters. That budget meant lots of effects, which means the effects have to be great which means even more money has to be spent on them, which means the movie becomes about the effects, which works against everything that isn't effects. So you have a bunch of people very good at making one kind of movie who end up having to make a different kind of movie.

py2006

Fan made, surely?

py2006

https://twitter.com/JasonReitman/status/1085592444387774464

py2006

Reitman does mention

t’s not clear at present if or how many of the original cast members will be back as further story details are under wraps. Reitman says there’s a: “lot of wonderful surprises and new characters for the audience to meet” and so further details will be dolled out over coming months.

Hopefully this means more characters as well as the orig cast

nullzero

RayCun wrote: »

Or, you know, an attempt to make a comedy with women in the lead roles, directed by someone who had just recently made an enormously successful comedy with women in lead roles, and casting two of the stars from that enormously successful comedy, plus one of the stars of the leading American television sketch comedy series.

Nah, you're right. It was all an attempt to brainwash men. Keep taking those red pills!

It wasnt an attempt to brainwash anyone.
It was an attempt by Sony to look hip and progressive. You're adding a whole layer of nonsense to the discussion that just isn't being put forward by anyone.

RayCun

Like any big budget movie, it was an attempt by Sony to make money.
See also Ghostbusters 3 above.

astrofool

RayCun wrote: »

Like any big budget movie, it was an attempt by Sony to make money.
See also Ghostbusters 3 above.

How dare they try and make money at my expense!

TomSweeney

nix wrote: »

Jesus.. how could anyone like the recent one? It's that fucking dire it blows my mind someone even liked it.. or worse.. found it funny :eek::rolleyes::(

virtue signalling

Mitch Connor

I liked it. Hemsworth was brilliant. Was a decent flick.

peteeeed

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I liked it. Hemsworth was brilliant. Was a decent flick.

i thought the story was really poor , good actors couldn't save it and the special effects were slightly off too and the cameos were terrible IMO

pixelburp

Without digging further into the production, I had this feeling throughout the film that Feig & co. tried for an improvisational approach to the comedy, but nearly all the resultant material was just flat and inconsistent. The end result either timid observational stuff (most of Melissa McCarthy's lines, including the unfunny 'wanton' running gag), or else really jarring goofball humour (nearly everything with Chris Hemsworth, a character too stupid to live). And Kate McKinnon seemed to be from a different film altogether.

As someone remarked earlier, the choice of Feig was obvious along the lines of "oh, he directed an all-women comedy before, he'd be perfect!", but not for this kind of script. It needed a steadier hand and a more structured, scripted approach to the comedy. But improvisation seems to be very "in" with American humour these days, especially the Saturday Night Live alumni of late.

RayCun

Also, if you look at the other Feig/McCarthy movies - Bridesmaids was 16s, and The Heat and Spy were 15A, but Ghostbusters was 12A.

s8n

Is that trailer real ?

peteeeed

s8n wrote: »

Is that trailer real ?

yes

peteeeed

original cast members are tweeting about it so they will probably be in

https://twitter.com/Ernie_Hudson/status/1085602476974256128