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

Ghostbusters Afterlife (Jason Reitman)

Options
13567…17

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    BeerWolf
    Registered Users Posts: 4,122 ✭✭✭BeerWolf


    Summer 2020...

    8l8g599mwsc01.png

    Hmm... coincidence?!

    July 5th 2020 :p


  • Options
    #63
    IncognitoMan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,394 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    Shouldn't the ghost be holding up a third finger?


  • Options
    #64
    ThePott
    Registered Users Posts: 3,058 ✭✭✭ThePott


    IncognitoMan wrote: »
    Shouldn't the ghost be holding up a third finger?


    I'm assuming this is a screencap from Ghostbusters 2 but the number just happens to have the year Ghostbusters 3 is out, so two fingers is correct.


  • Options
    #65
    brevity
    Registered Users Posts: 8,490 ✭✭✭brevity


    Sad Professor wrote: »
    They are looking for four teenagers for the lead roles according to Variety. However, I'd imagine the original cast will have significant roles as torch-passers and to give the film legitimacy after the last effort. Shooting footage just for a trailer is fairly unusual but they obviously wanted to get the fans onside.

    Might be jumping on that stranger things bandwagon.

    Kids find and old car and the proton packs. Get in over their heads and the old ghostbusters cameo in to help them out.


  • Options
    #66
    JP Liz V1
    Registered Users Posts: 85,124 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    RayCun wrote: »
    Yes, I'm sure Annie Potts is also available. So Ackroyd, Hudson, Potts, and a car - all the essential ingredients for a great movie.

    Potts in great in Young Sheldon

    Is Charlize Theron going to be in it, she works with Reitman alot
    https://forumofgames.com/




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Gulliver
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭Gulliver


    The 2016 one really was dire, though. I wanted to like it, I ignored all the fan outrage before seeing it and when in with a neutral mindset. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. The comedy, cameos and callbacks all felt like they were smashed into your face, repeatedly. It felt like one of those endless cutaway gags from Family Guy where they just keep going long after it stopped being funny.

    And the whole thing with the proton "six-shooters" was cringey.

    No cast, female or male, could have saved it.


  • Options
    #68
    ThePott
    Registered Users Posts: 3,058 ✭✭✭ThePott


    Ghostbuster-Reboot-Leslie-Jones-Reaction.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=738

    Well this should become an interesting thread


  • Options
    #69
    The Specialist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    ThePott wrote: »
    Ghostbuster-Reboot-Leslie-Jones-Reaction.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=738

    Well this should become an interesting thread

    Patethic response really. What makes her think anybody wants to see another ghostbusters with that cast? Did the sales figures and the complete commercial bomb of the last movie not paint a clear enough picture for her?


  • Options
    #70
    Adamocovic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,292 ✭✭✭Adamocovic


    The Specialist wrote: »
    Patethic response really. What makes her think anybody wants to see another ghostbusters with that cast? Did the sales figures and the complete commercial bomb of the last movie not paint a clear enough picture for her?

    Bit disrespectful to Reitman. The man wants to continue the legacy of his father. Reports saying a mix cast so not sure about the all male comment she made.

    It's a continuation and doesn't have to follow her film. Imagine the Spidermen kicking up this similar stink for every reboot!


  • Options
    #71
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,668 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    Jones is obviously misinformed. The leads won't be men. As has been know for a few days now, they are looking for 4 young teenagers for the lead roles: two boys and two girls.

    Also it's a bit rich for her to criticise this as a financially motivated "redo" when the pitch for her own film was literally "lets redo Ghostbusters with women, it will be huge, women can be ghostbusters too".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,909 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    I'd really love to see Hudson have a decent role in this one. What happened to him on the first movie really stunk for him, so it would be great to see him finally be given something to sink his teeth into. He's in great shape still too, much better than Murray or Ackroyd, and could still be convincing in action sequences. If the new Ghostbusters are teens (rather than 30s like Oscar would be) it's likely one of the originals will take on a mentor role and I hope if so, it's Zeddmore.


  • Options
    #73
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    The 2016 film was frankly just utter garbage, it infuriates me to constantly see the race and gender cards being played by some individuals who'll grasp at any straw to make that basic fact everyone's else problem. It was terrible, one of the few blockbuster films I've failed to sit through...and I say that as someone who's seen 'Pixels' and 'Deuce Bigalow European Gigalo' in their entirety.

    Notwithstanding that she's only talking crap anyway as the new film isn't even going to be an all-male cast.


  • Options
    #74
    py2006
    Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    Jones is missing out on a sequel and a pay packet. That's all.


  • Options
    #75
    S.M.B.
    Registered Users Posts: 9,354 ✭✭✭S.M.B.


    I can understand her being a little pissed over the fact they've decided to do a Ghostbusters III. I find the project and its timing a little odd. But I think she's a bit off with her "trump" angle though.


  • Options
    #76
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,924 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Pfft, after all of her pissing and moaning about the fan reaction to her reboot, that's an exceedingly poor message from Jones.

    In fairness, she got silly tweets about her own movie (and more besides), but putting that out there isn't going to win her much support.

    Really dumb move on her part. But then everyone sounds dumb eventually on Twitter.


  • Options
    #77
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,460 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Complains about Ghostbusters(2016) being ignored in the next film when Ghostbusters(2016) itself ignored the previous 2 films.


  • Options
    #78
    mikhail
    Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    astrofool wrote: »
    Complains about Ghostbusters(2016) being ignored in the next film when Ghostbusters(2016) itself ignored the previous 2 films.
    And pissed off a load of fans disappointed not to see the actors they like returning by calling them sexists. All they did was encourage the tiny minority of actual sexists. This latest message is not going to help on that front, either. I'd like to see more feminists calling out this sort of bull****; probably they already do, but this nonsense makes for better clickbait.


  • Options
    #79
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,959 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    ... they're back ....

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

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #80
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,983 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Well... it looks like we're all sexists .....that hate kids now. Or at least that's how I assume the press reaction will go when this latest iteration bombs at the box office.

    It seems that not only has Sony failed to sign the original cast yet, but the primary focus of the film will be young kids, I mean really young, they have been auditioning 12yr olds it seems. I presume they looked at the buzz from those publicity shots of Stranger Things 2 with the kids dressed as Ghostbusters and assumed 'that's what fans must be excited for! Ghostbusters Jr!'

    Just when you think Sony might course correct and save the ship-, they once again prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don't have a single clue and I actually wonder if any of the execs in charge have actually even seen the original. This is going to be a trainwreck


  • Options
    #81
    paulbok
    Registered Users Posts: 4,899 ✭✭✭paulbok


    Already a better movie than the recent reboot


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    nix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭nix


    I can't see 12 year old's driving a souped up hearse around :confused:


  • Options
    #83
    Fysh
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    Throwing in a different perspective - the amount of hate GB2016 got baffled me, on the basis that I thought it was an ok blockbuster comedy. It could've been better, sure, but hardly some sort of strapped-to-a-chair-while-someone-defecates-in-your-mouth experience.

    I think a lot of that is in part down to unrealistic hopes for a new film based on fondness for the original - but, well, even GB2 was already pretty meh compared to the original and that was while the original cast were all still around and interested. It's been a long time since Murray has done anything requiring more effort than cameoing as himself, and Ramis is dead.

    Maybe the new one will be the great sequel a lot of people want - I hope so, anyway :) But I suspect no sequel is ever going to make people as happy as the original did when they were much younger and had seen far fewer films...


  • Options
    #84
    Wedwood
    Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Wedwood


    Seems to be something about 1980's movies that people just want them to go on forever. Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, Rocky, Rambo, Aliens, Blade Runner, Die Hard, Predator, Terminator...………………..

    It's rather depressing seeing those 80's icons dusted down 30+ years later when they're in their 60s/70s, many of whom look ring rusty back on screen.

    Frankly, Murray and Ackroyd looked ancient and tired in their cameos last year. The only 80's star you could say can still hack it today is Harrison Ford, but even in the Blade Runner sequel, he'd slowed down a lot and spent most of his screen time looking a bit lost.


    That said, you'd struggle to find a decent modern action/comedy movie hero, the best example is probably Dwayne Johnson, after that you've Vin Diesel and Jason Statham. No wonder they wont let those 1980's guys retire !!


  • Options
    #85
    nix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭nix


    Fysh wrote: »
    Throwing in a different perspective - the amount of hate GB2016 got baffled me, on the basis that I thought it was an ok blockbuster comedy. It could've been better, sure, but hardly some sort of strapped-to-a-chair-while-someone-defecates-in-your-mouth experience.

    I think a lot of that is in part down to unrealistic hopes for a new film based on fondness for the original - but, well, even GB2 was already pretty meh compared to the original and that was while the original cast were all still around and interested. It's been a long time since Murray has done anything requiring more effort than cameoing as himself, and Ramis is dead.

    Maybe the new one will be the great sequel a lot of people want - I hope so, anyway :) But I suspect no sequel is ever going to make people as happy as the original did when they were much younger and had seen far fewer films...

    I think the issue with GB2016 was that nearly every line delivered on screen from pretty much everybody in the movie was a "joke" and pretty much all of it came off as improvisation. Which is fine, works in a lot of comedies, but the issue with this was, the jokes just werent funny, so the cast just came off as dumb and annoying..

    It would have worked better for them if they had a mixed cast of types, as in some serious which help ground the movie and not turn it into the sideshow that it was of everybody acting dumb/crazy and hoping its funny.

    And then when you compare that to the original ghostbusters, the cast was a perfect mix of creative wit and intelligence, they actually came off as scientists knowing what they were doing and also being funny, the only dumb/crazy characters in it were Moranis and Slimer haha

    And then fast forward to 2016 and its just all crazy characters hoping to get by on the grace of dick and fart jokes :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #86
    Fysh
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    Experience is subjective and all that, but I just don't think it's fair to say the jokes uniformly weren't funny - they didn't all land, but it was far from a no-laugh experience for me. Mind you, it's also not a film I've felt any interest in revisiting - which, if I'm fair, is equally true of GBII.

    Ultimately I don't envy anyone trying to recreate the lightning in a bottle of the original film; the problem IMO is neither "Sony are idiots" nor "but wimmins in mah pop culture", but rather "I want this new thing to be simultaneously familiar and as refreshing and new as GB was 35 years ago, and am going to pretend that I haven't changed in any way since then".


  • Options
    #87
    mikhail
    Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    Fysh wrote: »
    Ultimately I don't envy anyone trying to recreate the lightning in a bottle of the original film; the problem IMO is neither "Sony are idiots" nor "but wimmins in mah pop culture", but rather "I want this new thing to be simultaneously familiar and as refreshing and new as GB was 35 years ago, and am going to pretend that I haven't changed in any way since then".
    I think that's fair. I also think their marketing shot themselves in the foot and bred resentment towards the film by implying that anyone who didn't love it was a raging misogynist. It certainly left a sour taste in my mouth, and I didn't bother seeing it in the cinema. I caught it later, when all the noise had died out, and didn't think much of it. I've seen worse movies, but very few of them cost more to make.


  • Options
    #88
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,924 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Have to say the hate made perfect sense to me. It was cheap grift on a popular name, with a pretty poor sex change gimmick to try an "sell" it and a lot of folk just naturally pushed back.

    It was woefully misjudged and handled by entirely the wrong people. Feig and his regular ladies can be funny at times and films like 'Bridesmaids' show that. But, 'Ghostbusters' just wasn't the platform for their type of humour. It was an incredibly bad choice all round and coupled with gags that just simply didn't work (not to mention and awful, awful, turn by Chris Hemsworth), it was destined to be trash.

    In saying that, I firmly believe that the whole Ghostbusters thing should just be let stay dead. They're NEVER going to recapture 1984, no matter how hard they try. It's that simple.


  • Options
    #89
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    That Chris Hemsworth character. Holy god, the gag with him shot way past 'slapstick' into some quantum realm of unfunny. Not that goofball humour needs to obey the laws of reality, but when he covered his eyes because he heard a loud noise, I kinda raged a little. There's being affably dumb - that's frequently funny - but this guy was just too stupid to live.

    At that point I suspected Feig & co. had absolutely no kickback from anyone on the script; they were possibly just spitballing the first thing to their head, shooting it & congratulating themselves on being so funny.


  • Options
    #90
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    You people are insane.

    That movie had plenty of problems, but all the Hemsworth bits were great.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,668 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    I'm impressed that people remember so much about it. The film is mostly a blank for me. According to Letterboxd I gave it 2 stars, though, so I apparently found it tolerable.


Advertisement