Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Ghostbusters Afterlife (Jason Reitman)

1246710

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭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 :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭mloc123


    Oh look, a Stranger things movie...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,563 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 890 ✭✭✭El Duda


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,670 ✭✭✭✭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?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    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 :)


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,719 CMod ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,218 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,144 ✭✭✭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......


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    Trailer looks more interesting than I'd expected.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60,884 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


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


    I liked it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,563 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,670 ✭✭✭✭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?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 805 ✭✭✭mrmorgan


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


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,793 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,542 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭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 :p (The european version not the bad american one)




  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,670 ✭✭✭✭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?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,542 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


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

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

    Never played that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,542 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,680 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,647 CMod ✭✭✭✭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



    And....



    They’re exciting and look fun.

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


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,509 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,284 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,506 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,888 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    I teared up seeing the Spengler uniform.

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,506 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,011 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,647 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭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"

    :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,189 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,426 ✭✭✭Roar


    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.



    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,670 ✭✭✭✭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

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,670 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


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

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,479 ✭✭✭✭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.
    "I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year" - Charles Dickens




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 468 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,300 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement