Discuss Ghostbusters: Afterlife, released on November 19, 2021 and directed by Jason Reitman.
#4972135
Sav C wrote: August 26th, 2022, 5:28 pm Is it not kind of odd how science is treated in Afterlife? Obviously Ray and Egon both have PhDs, so it seems really odd that Ray didn't believe Egon. Certainly Egon would have been able to make a strong case based on the evidence--yet Ray makes him sound like he went looney. Take GBII for example. Proving the existence of a well of souls should have been no harder than proving the existence of a river of slime. Sure the Con Ed guy might not have believed it, but Ray would have.

Callie's relationship is also odd. Obviously there are people who dislike science because they disagree with its findings (anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, etc.). The thing is, Callie doesn't seem to question the findings of science--she just doesn't like it because Egon was a scientist. It's plausible, but it feels a bit contrived.
It’s part of the contrived nature of the movie. They had to justify Ray not going to Summerville because the story they concocted was heavy on the Spengler Family. Harold Ramis isn’t alive anymore and the tech they used to bring him back was far too expensive to use more than they did so Ray had to be separated.

It’s such a betrayal of these characters that it’s almost unforgivable. I wish Jason Reitman would talk about this or be confronted with this. “What the hell did you do to the Egon/Ray dynamic?”. There’s a version of this movie where Ray goes to Summerville but is too late. Maybe he finds Egon’s body. He becomes maybe obsessed with contacting Egon’s spirit but gets nothing. Then when the family moves to the farm it’s the catalyst Egon’s spirit needed as a “unfinished business” sort of thing. That when Egon starts communicating with Phoebe. Meanwhile Ray is still in town investigating the cult of Gozer, maybe he takes a teaching job at the school and he takes Paul Rudd’s place a bit…you could still have Paul Rudd maybe he’s a guy who works with Ray at the school and he’s a super nerdy Ghostbusters fan. Paul Rudd is Marty Mcfly to Ray’s Doc Brown.

The moment at the end where Ray says “I’m sorry” is very touching. But..it’s not Ray Stanz. He’d never ever not believe a Egon

What’s funny is the Ray part is really troublesome for me. One of my favourite things in Ghostbusters is the Ray/Egon relationship. They don’t need other relationships, just as long as they both have each other and science. It’s part of what makes GB2 so special we get lots of Ray/Egon times.

Someone up there said the concept of Ghostbusting has always been more important than the characters or actors..man that’s hard to read. I guess everyone loves the franchise for different reasons. I always figure the people in it for the Ghostbusting would be disappointed because there’s really so little of it in the original movies. I’ve said this in the past I think but I’m the opposite in that the characters are the gravy for me. But to each his or her own.
Sav C, WhoaFoogles liked this
#4972137
RichardLess wrote: August 26th, 2022, 3:03 am Wow. Hollllld up. Now I 1000% agree a lot of kids didn’t get the humour in Ghostbusters and thought it was just a regular movie. I was totally one of those kids.

But to suggest Ghostbusters didn’t become a pop culture icon as a comedy film? That’s a dubious claim. It totally became a pop culture icon as a comedy film. The Stay Puft Marshmallow man, one of the icons of the movie, is one of the best visual gags of all time. The movie stars and was made and written by the all star comedy team of that time. Veterans of SNL, Animal House, Blues Brothers, Caddyshack, Stripes, Second City TV.

Ghostbusters was successful as a comedy and was successful because it was a great comedy. The movie was known as the “highest grossing comedy of all time” until Home Alone.

If you want to see how the movie was received at the time, read the contemporary reviews. Read Roger Ebert review. You are taking your bias as a kid who didn’t see the film as a comedy and didn’t know it was a comedy and applying it to how other people must have felt.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “Afterlife was the first Ghostbusters movie *to get*…” The first film had all those elements lol. The second film had all the elements. The reboot had those elements. The only one that didn’t was Afterlife since it was missing the comedy!

So just to confirm, Ghostbusters is a comedy, was intended as a comedy, was successful as a comedy, is suppose to be a comedic franchise. Afterlife is the first of the movies is eschew the “Ghostbusters is a comedy vehicle for the top comedy stars of the era” and imo that is it’s greatest failure. Iron Man is more of a comedy than this movie. But again, that was intentional. They weren’t trying and failing to be funny. There’s humour moments in the movie, as there should be in any modern blockbuster not made by Zack Snyder, but it’s never laugh out loud funny. It’s more “oh that’s cute” sort of thing.

Yes Ghostbusters was a comedy but it wasn't just a comedy. The comedy was subtle, so subtle us '80s kids didn't even get most of the jokes for years. I would argue Afterlife was just as much of a comedy as the original. Like the original, the comedy was subtle. We didn't have a giant "three" on the logo to hammer us upside the head with it, unlike "two". That subtlety coupled with treating the plot seriously is what I consider the winning formula in a ghostbuster movie. If they had made a "Scary Movie" style comedy I seriously doubt it would have become the pop culture icon that it did. I don't believe the filmmakers intentionally tried to create a pop culture icon, that was just a fortuitous turn of events that likely surprised even them.

Don't misunderstand me either, I still enjoy watching Ghostbusters 2 and the Reboot, they're just not as good as the original or Afterlife.

Sorry but I really can't take Ebert seriously after he gave Star Wars Episode I four stars and Star Wars Episode III only two stars. That just doesn't make sense by any metric a normal average movie watcher would use.

Seriously though, you didn't laugh out loud at some of the comedy bits in Afterlife? Sorry the comedy didn't work for you, that definitely wasn't the case in the theater I saw the movie at. There were several times the audience (myself included) laughed out loud. You are right that it wasn't really any more than say Thor Ragnarok though. I guess the difference is I consider that normal for a ghostbuster movie.
One time liked this
#4972139
RichardLess wrote:
Sav C wrote: August 26th, 2022, 5:28 pm Is it not kind of odd how science is treated in Afterlife? Obviously Ray and Egon both have PhDs, so it seems really odd that Ray didn't believe Egon. Certainly Egon would have been able to make a strong case based on the evidence--yet Ray makes him sound like he went looney. Take GBII for example. Proving the existence of a well of souls should have been no harder than proving the existence of a river of slime. Sure the Con Ed guy might not have believed it, but Ray would have.

Callie's relationship is also odd. Obviously there are people who dislike science because they disagree with its findings (anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, etc.). The thing is, Callie doesn't seem to question the findings of science--she just doesn't like it because Egon was a scientist. It's plausible, but it feels a bit contrived.
It’s part of the contrived nature of the movie. They had to justify Ray not going to Summerville because the story they concocted was heavy on the Spengler Family. Harold Ramis isn’t alive anymore and the tech they used to bring him back was far too expensive to use more than they did so Ray had to be separated.

It’s such a betrayal of these characters that it’s almost unforgivable. I wish Jason Reitman would talk about this or be confronted with this. “What the hell did you do to the Egon/Ray dynamic?”. There’s a version of this movie where Ray goes to Summerville but is too late. Maybe he finds Egon’s body. He becomes maybe obsessed with contacting Egon’s spirit but gets nothing. Then when the family moves to the farm it’s the catalyst Egon’s spirit needed as a “unfinished business” sort of thing. That when Egon starts communicating with Phoebe. Meanwhile Ray is still in town investigating the cult of Gozer, maybe he takes a teaching job at the school and he takes Paul Rudd’s place a bit…you could still have Paul Rudd maybe he’s a guy who works with Ray at the school and he’s a super nerdy Ghostbusters fan. Paul Rudd is Marty Mcfly to Ray’s Doc Brown.

The moment at the end where Ray says “I’m sorry” is very touching. But..it’s not Ray Stanz. He’d never ever not believe a Egon

What’s funny is the Ray part is really troublesome for me. One of my favourite things in Ghostbusters is the Ray/Egon relationship. They don’t need other relationships, just as long as they both have each other and science. It’s part of what makes GB2 so special we get lots of Ray/Egon times.

Someone up there said the concept of Ghostbusting has always been more important than the characters or actors..man that’s hard to read. I guess everyone loves the franchise for different reasons. I always figure the people in it for the Ghostbusting would be disappointed because there’s really so little of it in the original movies. I’ve said this in the past I think but I’m the opposite in that the characters are the gravy for me. But to each his or her own.

@philmorgan81: I can see looking at it as Ray being more hurt than genuinely angry about Egon taking the equipment. That's buyable. I can also agree with outside factors unseen can contribute to a change in interpersonal dynamics. It's always a delicate balance between showing and telling when it comes to storytelling in visual media. For me, they needed to drive the point home far better than they ended up doing.

@ what I quoted from Sav C and RichardLess ties into my response beautifully I think. Part of the issue definitely lies within having to shift the Ray/Egon dynamic to accommodate for the fact that Harold Ramis had unfortunately passed away before the making of this movie. Had Harold still been alive, the story 200% would've been about those two branching off to investigate Summerville while Peter and Winston end up doing their own things (until they're needed again to save the world). I like your idea, Richard, of having Ray show up too late to stop Egon's bodily death but also trying his damndest to contact his friend in the afterlife. I'd have to laugh if they wrote it that Ray was getting through to Egon every time he contacted the spirit realm, but Egon being Egon, he was so focused on studying his surroundings and being a ghost himself that while he heard Ray, he wasn't responding. Think something akin when he's so absorbed in listening for activity in the early part of the library scene in GB1 that Pete can walk up to him and scare the crap out of him. It's only when Egon's family shows up and starts rooting around that he finally pulls his nose out of his proverbial books and starts interacting with the material plane again. Add in a line about time basically not existing in the spirit world, and well, Egon taking numerous years to respond to Ray and co. is entirely forgivable.
Sav C liked this
#4972141
PetroMan wrote: August 26th, 2022, 9:14 pm
RichardLess wrote: August 26th, 2022, 3:03 am Wow. Hollllld up. Now I 1000% agree a lot of kids didn’t get the humour in Ghostbusters and thought it was just a regular movie. I was totally one of those kids.

But to suggest Ghostbusters didn’t become a pop culture icon as a comedy film? That’s a dubious claim. It totally became a pop culture icon as a comedy film. The Stay Puft Marshmallow man, one of the icons of the movie, is one of the best visual gags of all time. The movie stars and was made and written by the all star comedy team of that time. Veterans of SNL, Animal House, Blues Brothers, Caddyshack, Stripes, Second City TV.

Ghostbusters was successful as a comedy and was successful because it was a great comedy. The movie was known as the “highest grossing comedy of all time” until Home Alone.

If you want to see how the movie was received at the time, read the contemporary reviews. Read Roger Ebert review. You are taking your bias as a kid who didn’t see the film as a comedy and didn’t know it was a comedy and applying it to how other people must have felt.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “Afterlife was the first Ghostbusters movie *to get*…” The first film had all those elements lol. The second film had all the elements. The reboot had those elements. The only one that didn’t was Afterlife since it was missing the comedy!

So just to confirm, Ghostbusters is a comedy, was intended as a comedy, was successful as a comedy, is suppose to be a comedic franchise. Afterlife is the first of the movies is eschew the “Ghostbusters is a comedy vehicle for the top comedy stars of the era” and imo that is it’s greatest failure. Iron Man is more of a comedy than this movie. But again, that was intentional. They weren’t trying and failing to be funny. There’s humour moments in the movie, as there should be in any modern blockbuster not made by Zack Snyder, but it’s never laugh out loud funny. It’s more “oh that’s cute” sort of thing.

Yes Ghostbusters was a comedy but it wasn't just a comedy. The comedy was subtle, so subtle us '80s kids didn't even get most of the jokes for years. I would argue Afterlife was just as much of a comedy as the original. Like the original, the comedy was subtle. We didn't have a giant "three" on the logo to hammer us upside the head with it, unlike "two". That subtlety coupled with treating the plot seriously is what I consider the winning formula in a ghostbuster movie. If they had made a "Scary Movie" style comedy I seriously doubt it would have become the pop culture icon that it did. I don't believe the filmmakers intentionally tried to create a pop culture icon, that was just a fortuitous turn of events that likely surprised even them.

Don't misunderstand me either, I still enjoy watching Ghostbusters 2 and the Reboot, they're just not as good as the original or Afterlife.

Sorry but I really can't take Ebert seriously after he gave Star Wars Episode I four stars and Star Wars Episode III only two stars. That just doesn't make sense by any metric a normal average movie watcher would use.

Seriously though, you didn't laugh out loud at some of the comedy bits in Afterlife? Sorry the comedy didn't work for you, that definitely wasn't the case in the theater I saw the movie at. There were several times the audience (myself included) laughed out loud. You are right that it wasn't really any more than say Thor Ragnarok though. I guess the difference is I consider that normal for a ghostbuster movie.
So will you trust Roger Ebert if I told you what you claims is not true? That he didn’t give episode one 4 starts or episode 3 two stars? I’m a Roger Ebert nerd. He gave those two movies the exact same score. 3.5 stars each. You can check it on his website. 3.5 stars for each. I’m not sure where you are getting that info from but it’s incorrect.
The only Star Wars film Ebert gave a negative review to was Episode 2(which I don’t agree with I love Episode 2. I love all the Lucas era films). And I just mentioned Roger Ebert as an example because he’s the most known film critic. Even if he did like one film over another I don’t see how that discounts anything. Film is subjective. I disagree with Ebert on MANY movies. He loved GB1 and loathed GB2.

I mean…if you think Afterlife is just as much of a comedy as the first two films then that’s your experience. But let the record show, GBA was written & directed by fairly straight edged people. And those original movies were a whose who of comedy legends . You have a cast with Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Rick Moranis and Harold Ramis. I just don’t see how anyone can compare the comedy but hey…whatever floats your boat. GBA has..Paul Rudd. The OGB’s are in it but not enough to move the comedy needle.

Ghostbusters comedy is definitely more dialogue based but it’s considered one of the best comedies of the 1980s if not of the last 40 years. I don’t think anyone would say GBA is the best comedy of any decade, year or month. But like I said your experience is your own. I won’t lie and say it’s not shocking to read someone compare the two but…ok. You do you.

And no. I didn’t laugh once at Ghostbusters Afterlife. I smirked a couple times. Paul Rudd was at his Paul Ruddiest. I loved Podcast, liked Phoebe..didn’t like Trevor or his love interest. Honestly the best line in the movie is when they are rolling into town and someone mentions the lack of cellphone bars and Carrie Coons quips something about there better be bars. But nothing comes even remotely close to Bill Murray’s opening scene in GB1 or GB2, or Rick Moranis going on about Fred and Annette or getting locked out repeatedly, or everything Janosz says in GB2. We don’t get great lines like “if there’s a steady pay check in it I’ll believe anything you say” or “back off man. I’m scientist”.

Edit: here’s Eberts 3.5 Star episode 3 review https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star ... -sith-2005

And here’s his 3.5 star Episode 1 review https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star ... enace-1999

Edit # 2 just for good measure here’s Eberts original Ghostbusters review which he gave 3.5 stars https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/ghostbusters-1984

For clarity sake Roger Eberts reviews are based on a 4 star system. 4 stars would be a perfect score. Anything below 3 stars is considered a “negative review”.
#4972142
Davideverona wrote: August 26th, 2022, 9:18 pm Why Ray didn't believe Egon?
It's simple.
Every time a world threatening event waa looming close, they experienced a spike in the activity.
Now Egon was talking about the return of Gozer but the business was slowing down. It made no sense.
Right but they weren’t in Summerville. Now if Ray went to Summerville with Egon and there was no evidence and Egon still was obsessed despite the lack of proof? Ok. But that’s not what happened. They are in NYC and don’t have much way of knowing if activity was happening or not. And also we don’t know a lot about why Egon became obsessed with Gozer again. Egon was never obsessed about anything. Egon has always been a “New Age Mr Spock”. So if Egon WAS obsessed there’s no way Ray doesn’t trust him. Ray seems like one of those people that believes everything because they are excited by the prospect. So if Egon comes up to Ray and says “I think I found Gozer again” Ray would be out the door headed to Summerville before Egon finished the sentence lol. And the world wasn’t really in danger when Egon left. Gozer was still slumbering and the paranormal activity slowly ratchets up the tension and paranormal activity. So if that wouldn’t be Ray’s reasoning as he know how it works. Shit only starts getting crazy when “the sign” happens.
#4972147
The comedy in the original is not subtle. At all. It as an overt, absolute comedy. Kids not getting the gags doesn't stop every single scene being absolutely loaded with very obvious jokes.

---

The Ray betrayal is Jason over-remembering RGB over GB1 again. RGB Ray would never forgive anyone for taking Ghostbusting away from him. The dialogue in Afterlife suggests it was Egon raking the equipment and putting them out of business that he couldn't forgive, not the ramblings so much. Rambling Egon wasn't helping, but Egon taking the kit killed Ray's great love. I can totally see that being a plot point for Maurice LaMarche and Frank Welker, so I can forgive a little awkwardness in it feeling shoehorned onto Ramis and Aykroyd.
Last edited by robbritton on August 27th, 2022, 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#4972149
RichardLess wrote: August 26th, 2022, 2:47 am
WCat2000 wrote: August 25th, 2022, 3:51 pm It maybe head canon but the Mini Pufts make perfect sense. The original giant was the form Gozer took in the first movie…in Afterlife that specific spirit, energy, PKE or whatever you wanna call it came with the terror dog because it’s part of Gozer.

It animated those Marshmallows because they’re the physical version of that power. For this world at least. Didn’t the game use a similar explanation?

Other food mascots were not gonna come to life because they were not a form of Gozer. She did not become a cereal mascot so that energy would not change into a cereal character just because it returned.

Not sure about the cartoon or comic but as far as the movies go they make sense. Ray even tells Podcast they’re a manifestation of Gozer. The terror dogs are her minions. Her previous life form also coming through but smaller since she’s back to her “default” body is totally believable.
Yes. This is a perfect example of head canon. You are trying to make sense of something that doesn’t make sense given what’s established in the movies. It works for you and that’s awesome.


Does it make “perfect sense”? To me? No. It really doesn’t. The terror dog isn’t Gozer. The idea would make *maybe* some sense if the Marshmallow Men came out of that mine. I could maybe, maybe accept that. Or an idea I had was that one of the stores in town is a model toy shop. Inside they had a model of Summerville. Or maybe New York. We establish it earlier in the movie when Trevor is looking for a job. During the montage we see what we think is the Main Street of Summerville and all of a sudden a giant Mr. Stay Puft is roaming the streets, suddenly there’s another one, and another and we pull back to reveal they are tiny and on the model town. That’s the kind of thing that would be a neat visual and tie into the “love letter” aspect since it’s also a meta comment on the FX of the original film.


You know how the idea you & Mrmichaelt present could work? If the pink energy beams that cause all the ghost chaos, if that was shown visually going into a bag of marshmallows, like the energy goes into the cab exhaust in the first movie, and the mini pufts came alive following that? Then it works. Because the movie is giving you the visual language of the franchise and that’s all we need.
But them just coming alive because a terror dog is close in proximity? I’m glad that is enough for you so that it works. But for me? It goes against what I perceive as the verisimilitude of the films.

And again, the better idea, imo, was right there and it would add something. Egon kept samples of the Gozer mashmallow, which of course he would do. He a boxes of Petri dishes full of it. Now that works because those samples are literally Gozer remains. And it’s one of those really obvious things, I remember before the movie came out the idea was floating around as “of course that’s how they come back”. It’s such a no brainer I’m shocked that’s not the way they went.
The terror dog arriving at Wal-Mart happened off screen and there were other Mini Pufts already running around besides the bag Mr. Grooberson encountered. Seeing pink energy beams was not necessary. The terror dogs break out of stone and we don’t see that happen either. I like the idea of Egon keeping marshmallow samples but there’s nothing wrong with the way it is.

You mentioned having your own head canon about the GB2 painting, which is fine, yet you’re against how the the Mini Pufts came to life even though Ray clearly stated they’re a manifestation of Gozer. They actually gave an explanation (though basic). They said nothing about how the painting happened.

Sounds like you’re just being contrarian about it.

Also there’s concept art of the Mini Pufts re-enacting the original scene with groceries and toys so they definitely had a similar idea. Just didn’t use it.
#4972159
RichardLess wrote: August 26th, 2022, 7:41 pm Someone up there said the concept of Ghostbusting has always been more important than the characters or actors..man that’s hard to read. I guess everyone loves the franchise for different reasons. I always figure the people in it for the Ghostbusting would be disappointed because there’s really so little of it in the original movies. I’ve said this in the past I think but I’m the opposite in that the characters are the gravy for me. But to each his or her own.
Particularly having seen the response to both ATC and Afterlife, it's fascinating to see that we all really do have our own way of evaluating Ghostbusters movies. I'd say the strength of the plot is up there for me, but the characters are my favorite part as well, and that's why I'm pretty forgiving towards GBII rehashing the first movie's beats.

At risk of sounding pretentious, there's an Ernest Hemingway quote where he talks about how, if a writer omits something from a story and knows what he's omitting, the story will still work just fine. However, if a writer omits stuff but doesn't know what's being omitted, the story will be hollow. Ghostbusters is obviously a comedy, so it has some leeway when it comes to the story. For me though, parts of Afterlife felt hollow, like Jason didn't really know the backstory well (although robbritton's point about RGB is really interesting, and would negate what I'm saying here a bit). It feels like they didn't know why Ray disbelieved Egon, or why Gozer didn't take on the destructor form. In the first movie, Gozer only had to be shot at by the proton streams twice before saying, enough of this, let's bring on the destructor. Here, Gozer acts differently, but it's not apparent to me why that's the case. mrmichaelt made a really interesting point about the ritual being disrupted by the trapping of the terror dog, but I'm still surprised Gozer didn't take on the destructor form at the farmhouse, and instead decided to face the proton beams head on.

There's another oddity, and this one is a small one--I'm probably being too harsh here. Why were Gary and Callie possessed? It makes sense that Dana got possessed--clearly her apartment had something funky about it (the eggs, the fridge, the tv, that (previously hidden?) stairwell). It felt like whoever occupied that apartment was bound to be possessed. It wouldn't surprise me if whoever was in Louis' apartment was also bound to be possessed (I mean, same floor, across the hall). With Gary and Callie, I can see Callie being possessed--obviously the Spengler house was well known to the terror dogs. Less plausible to me, though, is how Phoebe's summer school teacher just happens to be the poor fellow to be in Walmart at the same time a terror dog has gone shopping. It seems a hair too coincidental, unless the terror dog had latched on to him specifically, and if so, why? Because him and Callie had mutual feelings for each other? Dana didn't seem too interested in Louis... Maybe it's just a coincidence that Gary was possessed, but if not, it feels like there's some missing backstory. Also, I realize that I am 100% overthinking things here, and a comedy doesn't really deserve to be put under a microscope like this. I mean, this Gary and Callie thing wouldn't have even occurred to me if the other parts in the movie didn't feel so contrived to me.

I think it's great that we have these discussions. I'm an English major, and enjoy the nitpicking and friendly disagreement (which occurs a lot over English works). We all love Ghostbusters and I'm glad we have this outlet to explore our passion in depth.
Spenglers, robbritton, RichardLess and 1 others liked this
#4972164
WCat2000 wrote: August 27th, 2022, 4:46 am
RichardLess wrote: August 26th, 2022, 2:47 am

Yes. This is a perfect example of head canon. You are trying to make sense of something that doesn’t make sense given what’s established in the movies. It works for you and that’s awesome.


Does it make “perfect sense”? To me? No. It really doesn’t. The terror dog isn’t Gozer. The idea would make *maybe* some sense if the Marshmallow Men came out of that mine. I could maybe, maybe accept that. Or an idea I had was that one of the stores in town is a model toy shop. Inside they had a model of Summerville. Or maybe New York. We establish it earlier in the movie when Trevor is looking for a job. During the montage we see what we think is the Main Street of Summerville and all of a sudden a giant Mr. Stay Puft is roaming the streets, suddenly there’s another one, and another and we pull back to reveal they are tiny and on the model town. That’s the kind of thing that would be a neat visual and tie into the “love letter” aspect since it’s also a meta comment on the FX of the original film.


You know how the idea you & Mrmichaelt present could work? If the pink energy beams that cause all the ghost chaos, if that was shown visually going into a bag of marshmallows, like the energy goes into the cab exhaust in the first movie, and the mini pufts came alive following that? Then it works. Because the movie is giving you the visual language of the franchise and that’s all we need.
But them just coming alive because a terror dog is close in proximity? I’m glad that is enough for you so that it works. But for me? It goes against what I perceive as the verisimilitude of the films.

And again, the better idea, imo, was right there and it would add something. Egon kept samples of the Gozer mashmallow, which of course he would do. He a boxes of Petri dishes full of it. Now that works because those samples are literally Gozer remains. And it’s one of those really obvious things, I remember before the movie came out the idea was floating around as “of course that’s how they come back”. It’s such a no brainer I’m shocked that’s not the way they went.
The terror dog arriving at Wal-Mart happened off screen and there were other Mini Pufts already running around besides the bag Mr. Grooberson encountered. Seeing pink energy beams was not necessary. The terror dogs break out of stone and we don’t see that happen either. I like the idea of Egon keeping marshmallow samples but there’s nothing wrong with the way it is.

You mentioned having your own head canon about the GB2 painting, which is fine, yet you’re against how the the Mini Pufts came to life even though Ray clearly stated they’re a manifestation of Gozer. They actually gave an explanation (though basic). They said nothing about how the painting happened.

Sounds like you’re just being contrarian about it.

Also there’s concept art of the Mini Pufts re-enacting the original scene with groceries and toys so they definitely had a similar idea. Just didn’t use it.
If I’m being completely honest my GB2 head canon doesn’t stand up to scrutiny at all. I thought of that idea waaaay back when I was maybe 12? The new painting doesn’t make much sense but it’s also not a rule breaker either. Something happens supernaturally we don’t understand and it’s meant as a joke and the joke falls flat. It’s a failure. I’ll be the first to admit Ghostbusters 2 is a flawed film, especially the 3rd act. Now why is Ghostbusters 2 a good movie and Ghostbusters Afterlife is not, imo? It’s comedy, characters and plot. It’s more interesting, it’s far, far funnier, it has some great ghosts and it’s a fun, albeit flawed film. There’s nothing in Ghostbusters 2 I’d want to change or do differently except a few things in the 3rd act. The mood slime is a cool concept, Vigo is a creepy villain, spending time with these characters are they try to solve the case is wonderful. Afterlife has some of the same things happen as the first film, except not nearly as cool, funny or epic. If you are going to use Gozer again you best do something interesting with her. And they just do not. Almost everything involving legacy content from the original film, from the use of the OG characters, mythology, ghosts etc feels sloppy and haphazard. That was never the case in the original films. Everything felt thought out and well reasoned(even if it wasn’t. It still felt that way).

Afterlife fails due to all the reasons I’ve mentioned. I’m not being contrarian. The mini pufts just do not make sense on a story level given what we know. Again, it’s cool your explanation works for you. To me it’s comes off as contrived fan service. Maybe I’m missing something but I’m not sure what you mean by the terror dog appearing off screen & how that relates to the mini pufts? Are you saying that we don’t need to see the pink energy beam make the mini pufts because we don’t see the terror dog break free? If that’s what you are getting at I’d say we don’t need to see the terror dog break free because we’ve seen that before. We’ve never seen objects that were one thing comes alive as something else. It’s that “V” word I’m always going on about. Verisimilitude. I feel like the mini pufts break the verisimilitude established in the first two films.

Hm. When does Ray mention the mini pufts are a manifestation of Gozer? I’m trying to remember. Does he say that to podcast? It’s been a bit since I watched the movie. If he does say that it would go against the mythology tho since Gozer has not come back due to the ritual not being completed. Plus Ray didn’t witness how the mini pufts came into being. He doesn’t know the time table of how or when they appeared so that would be another error. The original Stay Puft is a manifestation of Gozer that is suppose to be the destroyer. It’s “Gozer the Destructor”. The mini pufts must be “Gozer The Fan Service”.

And let’s be honest again. I’m definitely in the minority here. I think most people dug the mini pufts. But then it’s also like that “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” meme with Leonardo Dicaprio pointing at his TV. People see something they recognize & that positive neural feedback loop happens in the brain where they subconsciously realize “hey. Mr. Stay Puft! I have fond memories of this from childhood”. They get that nostalgic dopamine hit. But most people aren’t super into the franchise like we are so they don’t question the logic. They just go with it. Now we as fans need a little more than that. So we head canon it and sometime that works and it’s great. Sometimes it doesn’t.

But I’m not being contrarian. I feel my reasoning is sound. You may not agree with it but that doesn’t mean it’s any less the truth than your head canon theory.

I feel like this movie had the right ingredients for a good Ghostbusters sequel but it was undercooked. They needed maybe 1 or two more drafts on the script .
#4972174
RichardLess wrote: August 27th, 2022, 12:33 am So will you trust Roger Ebert if I told you what you claims is not true? That he didn’t give episode one 4 starts or episode 3 two stars? I’m a Roger Ebert nerd. He gave those two movies the exact same score. 3.5 stars each. You can check it on his website. 3.5 stars for each. I’m not sure where you are getting that info from but it’s incorrect.
The only Star Wars film Ebert gave a negative review to was Episode 2(which I don’t agree with I love Episode 2. I love all the Lucas era films). And I just mentioned Roger Ebert as an example because he’s the most known film critic. Even if he did like one film over another I don’t see how that discounts anything. Film is subjective. I disagree with Ebert on MANY movies. He loved GB1 and loathed GB2.

I mean…if you think Afterlife is just as much of a comedy as the first two films then that’s your experience. But let the record show, GBA was written & directed by fairly straight edged people. And those original movies were a whose who of comedy legends . You have a cast with Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Rick Moranis and Harold Ramis. I just don’t see how anyone can compare the comedy but hey…whatever floats your boat. GBA has..Paul Rudd. The OGB’s are in it but not enough to move the comedy needle.

Ghostbusters comedy is definitely more dialogue based but it’s considered one of the best comedies of the 1980s if not of the last 40 years. I don’t think anyone would say GBA is the best comedy of any decade, year or month. But like I said your experience is your own. I won’t lie and say it’s not shocking to read someone compare the two but…ok. You do you.

And no. I didn’t laugh once at Ghostbusters Afterlife. I smirked a couple times. Paul Rudd was at his Paul Ruddiest. I loved Podcast, liked Phoebe..didn’t like Trevor or his love interest. Honestly the best line in the movie is when they are rolling into town and someone mentions the lack of cellphone bars and Carrie Coons quips something about there better be bars. But nothing comes even remotely close to Bill Murray’s opening scene in GB1 or GB2, or Rick Moranis going on about Fred and Annette or getting locked out repeatedly, or everything Janosz says in GB2. We don’t get great lines like “if there’s a steady pay check in it I’ll believe anything you say” or “back off man. I’m scientist”.

Edit: here’s Eberts 3.5 Star episode 3 review https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star ... -sith-2005

And here’s his 3.5 star Episode 1 review https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star ... enace-1999

Edit # 2 just for good measure here’s Eberts original Ghostbusters review which he gave 3.5 stars https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/ghostbusters-1984

For clarity sake Roger Eberts reviews are based on a 4 star system. 4 stars would be a perfect score. Anything below 3 stars is considered a “negative review”.

I originally read Ebert's reviews of Star Wars I and III in the local newspaper. That link for Episode I's review is what I remember reading (but with a 4 star recommendation) but that link to Episode III is not. It's not just me either my whole circle of real life friends joked about "Ebert's" review of Episode III that we read in the paper as proof that he had lost his marbles. Apparently it was our local newspaper's editor that lost his marbles attributing someone else's review to Ebert. That is going to lead to some fascinating conversation amongst my real life friends in the next few days. I'm kind of mind blown on that one.

I had never seen Ebert's review for the original Ghostbusters either so that was interesting as well.

As far as the original cast being a who's who of comedy legends, I never really saw that either. I've seen Groundhog Day, What About Bob, Spaceballs, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, and Galaxy Quest. Other than that I have never watched anything else with the Ghostbusters actors (from any of the 4 movies) that would be considered a comedy.

The dialog based comedy is exactly what I was thinking of when I said the comedy was subtle. In my experience a surprising number of adults miss the jokes on dialog based comedy entirely. "This job is definitely not worth 11-5 a year." being a prime example of one of my favorite jokes from the original that most causal fans of the movie stare at me blankly when I mention it.

"I just thought you were being obtuse." from Afterlife was just as funny to me. I thought the character Phoebe in general was hilarious. Of course the character Egon was always my favorite from the original movie and cartoon. I guess that makes sense then that the character with the most similarities would be my favorite from Afterlife.

I do appreciate that we can disagree and still have an intelligent and civilized conversation on the topic. I've certainly learned a few new things. Hopefully you a least see where I am coming from now.
#4972176
PetroMan wrote: August 27th, 2022, 8:07 pm
RichardLess wrote: August 27th, 2022, 12:33 am So will you trust Roger Ebert if I told you what you claims is not true? That he didn’t give episode one 4 starts or episode 3 two stars? I’m a Roger Ebert nerd. He gave those two movies the exact same score. 3.5 stars each. You can check it on his website. 3.5 stars for each. I’m not sure where you are getting that info from but it’s incorrect.
The only Star Wars film Ebert gave a negative review to was Episode 2(which I don’t agree with I love Episode 2. I love all the Lucas era films). And I just mentioned Roger Ebert as an example because he’s the most known film critic. Even if he did like one film over another I don’t see how that discounts anything. Film is subjective. I disagree with Ebert on MANY movies. He loved GB1 and loathed GB2.

I mean…if you think Afterlife is just as much of a comedy as the first two films then that’s your experience. But let the record show, GBA was written & directed by fairly straight edged people. And those original movies were a whose who of comedy legends . You have a cast with Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Rick Moranis and Harold Ramis. I just don’t see how anyone can compare the comedy but hey…whatever floats your boat. GBA has..Paul Rudd. The OGB’s are in it but not enough to move the comedy needle.

Ghostbusters comedy is definitely more dialogue based but it’s considered one of the best comedies of the 1980s if not of the last 40 years. I don’t think anyone would say GBA is the best comedy of any decade, year or month. But like I said your experience is your own. I won’t lie and say it’s not shocking to read someone compare the two but…ok. You do you.

And no. I didn’t laugh once at Ghostbusters Afterlife. I smirked a couple times. Paul Rudd was at his Paul Ruddiest. I loved Podcast, liked Phoebe..didn’t like Trevor or his love interest. Honestly the best line in the movie is when they are rolling into town and someone mentions the lack of cellphone bars and Carrie Coons quips something about there better be bars. But nothing comes even remotely close to Bill Murray’s opening scene in GB1 or GB2, or Rick Moranis going on about Fred and Annette or getting locked out repeatedly, or everything Janosz says in GB2. We don’t get great lines like “if there’s a steady pay check in it I’ll believe anything you say” or “back off man. I’m scientist”.

Edit: here’s Eberts 3.5 Star episode 3 review https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star ... -sith-2005

And here’s his 3.5 star Episode 1 review https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star ... enace-1999

Edit # 2 just for good measure here’s Eberts original Ghostbusters review which he gave 3.5 stars https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/ghostbusters-1984

For clarity sake Roger Eberts reviews are based on a 4 star system. 4 stars would be a perfect score. Anything below 3 stars is considered a “negative review”.

I originally read Ebert's reviews of Star Wars I and III in the local newspaper. That link for Episode I's review is what I remember reading (but with a 4 star recommendation) but that link to Episode III is not. It's not just me either my whole circle of real life friends joked about "Ebert's" review of Episode III that we read in the paper as proof that he had lost his marbles. Apparently it was our local newspaper's editor that lost his marbles attributing someone else's review to Ebert. That is going to lead to some fascinating conversation amongst my real life friends in the next few days. I'm kind of mind blown on that one.

I had never seen Ebert's review for the original Ghostbusters either so that was interesting as well.

As far as the original cast being a who's who of comedy legends, I never really saw that either. I've seen Groundhog Day, What About Bob, Spaceballs, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, and Galaxy Quest. Other than that I have never watched anything else with the Ghostbusters actors (from any of the 4 movies) that would be considered a comedy.

The dialog based comedy is exactly what I was thinking of when I said the comedy was subtle. In my experience a surprising number of adults miss the jokes on dialog based comedy entirely. "This job is definitely not worth 11-5 a year." being a prime example of one of my favorite jokes from the original that most causal fans of the movie stare at me blankly when I mention it.

"I just thought you were being obtuse." from Afterlife was just as funny to me. I thought the character Phoebe in general was hilarious. Of course the character Egon was always my favorite from the original movie and cartoon. I guess that makes sense then that the character with the most similarities would be my favorite from Afterlife.

I do appreciate that we can disagree and still have an intelligent and civilized conversation on the topic. I've certainly learned a few new things. Hopefully you a least see where I am coming from now.
For a second I was thinking maybe you were an example of the Mandela effect with the Ebert reviews. I’ve had something like that happen.
Years ago, back in middle school, and my friends were all talking about how in the 1989 Batman movie when The Joker is tossing all the money into the crowd, we see that the bills are marked with the Jokers face(thus fulfilling his “plan” that he mentioned to Vicki Vale earlier in the movie). So my friends and I are hanging out one summer afternoon and Batman ‘89 comes on and of course there’s no Joker face on the money. I think ok it’s gotta be the TV edit so we download the movie off Kazaa or BitTorrent and..nope. No Joker face on the money.

Ghostbusters also has its own kinda urban legend. Back in the IMDb message board days I use to come across multiple people who swear they saw a different version of Ghostbusters 2 in theatres with deleted scenes like Slimer flying out of the Statue of Liberty at the very end. Are they wrong? Who knows. We do know that was a planned bit and there exists storyboards for it and the comic book adaptation of the movie which has a few deleted scenes features that ending I think.

Then there’s the Bernstain Bears. I would’ve beat money it was BearSTEIN Bears. But it’s stain. Weird.

Glad you dug Ebert Ghostbusters review. I enjoy it as well. I wish he had written a GB2 review so I could read his negative thoughts on it. Oddly enough GB2 is that rare movie where Ebert and Siskel reviewed it on TV but not in print
#4972179
RichardLess wrote: August 27th, 2022, 2:43 pm
WCat2000 wrote: August 27th, 2022, 4:46 am The terror dog arriving at Wal-Mart happened off screen and there were other Mini Pufts already running around besides the bag Mr. Grooberson encountered. Seeing pink energy beams was not necessary. The terror dogs break out of stone and we don’t see that happen either. I like the idea of Egon keeping marshmallow samples but there’s nothing wrong with the way it is.

You mentioned having your own head canon about the GB2 painting, which is fine, yet you’re against how the the Mini Pufts came to life even though Ray clearly stated they’re a manifestation of Gozer. They actually gave an explanation (though basic). They said nothing about how the painting happened.

Sounds like you’re just being contrarian about it.

Also there’s concept art of the Mini Pufts re-enacting the original scene with groceries and toys so they definitely had a similar idea. Just didn’t use it.
If I’m being completely honest my GB2 head canon doesn’t stand up to scrutiny at all. I thought of that idea waaaay back when I was maybe 12? The new painting doesn’t make much sense but it’s also not a rule breaker either. Something happens supernaturally we don’t understand and it’s meant as a joke and the joke falls flat. It’s a failure. I’ll be the first to admit Ghostbusters 2 is a flawed film, especially the 3rd act. Now why is Ghostbusters 2 a good movie and Ghostbusters Afterlife is not, imo? It’s comedy, characters and plot. It’s more interesting, it’s far, far funnier, it has some great ghosts and it’s a fun, albeit flawed film. There’s nothing in Ghostbusters 2 I’d want to change or do differently except a few things in the 3rd act. The mood slime is a cool concept, Vigo is a creepy villain, spending time with these characters are they try to solve the case is wonderful. Afterlife has some of the same things happen as the first film, except not nearly as cool, funny or epic. If you are going to use Gozer again you best do something interesting with her. And they just do not. Almost everything involving legacy content from the original film, from the use of the OG characters, mythology, ghosts etc feels sloppy and haphazard. That was never the case in the original films. Everything felt thought out and well reasoned(even if it wasn’t. It still felt that way).

Afterlife fails due to all the reasons I’ve mentioned. I’m not being contrarian. The mini pufts just do not make sense on a story level given what we know. Again, it’s cool your explanation works for you. To me it’s comes off as contrived fan service. Maybe I’m missing something but I’m not sure what you mean by the terror dog appearing off screen & how that relates to the mini pufts? Are you saying that we don’t need to see the pink energy beam make the mini pufts because we don’t see the terror dog break free? If that’s what you are getting at I’d say we don’t need to see the terror dog break free because we’ve seen that before. We’ve never seen objects that were one thing comes alive as something else. It’s that “V” word I’m always going on about. Verisimilitude. I feel like the mini pufts break the verisimilitude established in the first two films.

Hm. When does Ray mention the mini pufts are a manifestation of Gozer? I’m trying to remember. Does he say that to podcast? It’s been a bit since I watched the movie. If he does say that it would go against the mythology tho since Gozer has not come back due to the ritual not being completed. Plus Ray didn’t witness how the mini pufts came into being. He doesn’t know the time table of how or when they appeared so that would be another error. The original Stay Puft is a manifestation of Gozer that is suppose to be the destroyer. It’s “Gozer the Destructor”. The mini pufts must be “Gozer The Fan Service”.

And let’s be honest again. I’m definitely in the minority here. I think most people dug the mini pufts. But then it’s also like that “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” meme with Leonardo Dicaprio pointing at his TV. People see something they recognize & that positive neural feedback loop happens in the brain where they subconsciously realize “hey. Mr. Stay Puft! I have fond memories of this from childhood”. They get that nostalgic dopamine hit. But most people aren’t super into the franchise like we are so they don’t question the logic. They just go with it. Now we as fans need a little more than that. So we head canon it and sometime that works and it’s great. Sometimes it doesn’t.

But I’m not being contrarian. I feel my reasoning is sound. You may not agree with it but that doesn’t mean it’s any less the truth than your head canon theory.

I feel like this movie had the right ingredients for a good Ghostbusters sequel but it was undercooked. They needed maybe 1 or two more drafts on the script .
Ya that’s what I meant about happening off screen.

Ray says it to Podcast when he greets him covered in marshmallow. Why would he need a timetable or to witness them? They just fought Gozer. It’s no mystery who’s responsible for the Mini Pufts being there.

It actually does not go against the mythology. It just adds to it. Sure Gozer has not actually returned at that point but she’s not directly taking on that form again so she does not need to be present for the Mini Pufts to exist. It’s really not that hard to imagine Gozer has the power to make another form of Stay Puft that comes along with the terror dog. Head canon or not it’s a very simple link.

As far as the Mini Pufts go they’re cute, funny and actually assist Gozer by trying to sabotage the car. Sure there’s some nostalgia with the character but they did something different and interesting with it.
#4972181
WCat2000 wrote: August 27th, 2022, 10:29 pm
RichardLess wrote: August 27th, 2022, 2:43 pm

If I’m being completely honest my GB2 head canon doesn’t stand up to scrutiny at all. I thought of that idea waaaay back when I was maybe 12? The new painting doesn’t make much sense but it’s also not a rule breaker either. Something happens supernaturally we don’t understand and it’s meant as a joke and the joke falls flat. It’s a failure. I’ll be the first to admit Ghostbusters 2 is a flawed film, especially the 3rd act. Now why is Ghostbusters 2 a good movie and Ghostbusters Afterlife is not, imo? It’s comedy, characters and plot. It’s more interesting, it’s far, far funnier, it has some great ghosts and it’s a fun, albeit flawed film. There’s nothing in Ghostbusters 2 I’d want to change or do differently except a few things in the 3rd act. The mood slime is a cool concept, Vigo is a creepy villain, spending time with these characters are they try to solve the case is wonderful. Afterlife has some of the same things happen as the first film, except not nearly as cool, funny or epic. If you are going to use Gozer again you best do something interesting with her. And they just do not. Almost everything involving legacy content from the original film, from the use of the OG characters, mythology, ghosts etc feels sloppy and haphazard. That was never the case in the original films. Everything felt thought out and well reasoned(even if it wasn’t. It still felt that way).

Afterlife fails due to all the reasons I’ve mentioned. I’m not being contrarian. The mini pufts just do not make sense on a story level given what we know. Again, it’s cool your explanation works for you. To me it’s comes off as contrived fan service. Maybe I’m missing something but I’m not sure what you mean by the terror dog appearing off screen & how that relates to the mini pufts? Are you saying that we don’t need to see the pink energy beam make the mini pufts because we don’t see the terror dog break free? If that’s what you are getting at I’d say we don’t need to see the terror dog break free because we’ve seen that before. We’ve never seen objects that were one thing comes alive as something else. It’s that “V” word I’m always going on about. Verisimilitude. I feel like the mini pufts break the verisimilitude established in the first two films.

Hm. When does Ray mention the mini pufts are a manifestation of Gozer? I’m trying to remember. Does he say that to podcast? It’s been a bit since I watched the movie. If he does say that it would go against the mythology tho since Gozer has not come back due to the ritual not being completed. Plus Ray didn’t witness how the mini pufts came into being. He doesn’t know the time table of how or when they appeared so that would be another error. The original Stay Puft is a manifestation of Gozer that is suppose to be the destroyer. It’s “Gozer the Destructor”. The mini pufts must be “Gozer The Fan Service”.

And let’s be honest again. I’m definitely in the minority here. I think most people dug the mini pufts. But then it’s also like that “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” meme with Leonardo Dicaprio pointing at his TV. People see something they recognize & that positive neural feedback loop happens in the brain where they subconsciously realize “hey. Mr. Stay Puft! I have fond memories of this from childhood”. They get that nostalgic dopamine hit. But most people aren’t super into the franchise like we are so they don’t question the logic. They just go with it. Now we as fans need a little more than that. So we head canon it and sometime that works and it’s great. Sometimes it doesn’t.

But I’m not being contrarian. I feel my reasoning is sound. You may not agree with it but that doesn’t mean it’s any less the truth than your head canon theory.

I feel like this movie had the right ingredients for a good Ghostbusters sequel but it was undercooked. They needed maybe 1 or two more drafts on the script .
Ya that’s what I meant about happening off screen.

Ray says it to Podcast when he greets him covered in marshmallow. Why would he need a timetable or to witness them? They just fought Gozer. It’s no mystery who’s responsible for the Mini Pufts being there.

It actually does not go against the mythology. It just adds to it. Sure Gozer has not actually returned at that point but she’s not directly taking on that form again so she does not need to be present for the Mini Pufts to exist. It’s really not that hard to imagine Gozer has the power to make another form of Stay Puft that comes along with the terror dog. Head canon or not it’s a very simple link.

As far as the Mini Pufts go they’re cute, funny and actually assist Gozer by trying to sabotage the car. Sure there’s some nostalgia with the character but they did something different and interesting with it.
It goes against the mythology because there is no Gozer when the mini pufts appear! There’s no Gozer. There’s a terror dog. The first movie establishes the “rules”. Terror Dogs come, possess two humans who then mate, Gozer is then able to come into our Dimension. There’s no special “Gozer energy” that the movies mention.

Ray does not witness Gozer return in this movie. He doesn’t know where the Mini Pufts came from. So when he says “theyre a manifestation of Gozer” or whatever it is you mention he says he’s not aware these things came long before Gozer showed up. He doesn’t know the “choose the form of the destructor” hasn’t occurred, he doesn’t know about Shandor getting ripped in half. He’s only witnessing things when the action gets to the farm. The mini pufts cannot be a manifestation of Gozer because she hasn’t crossed into our dimension yet. It’s as simple as that. No Gozer=No Marshmallows turning into sentient creatures. Gozer has no “power” to do anything before she’s in our dimension.

Because movies aren’t created in a vaccum we know the filmmakers wanted to exploit Mr. Stay Puft again and based how we see Mr. Stay Puft created in the first film, and the mini pufts randomly appearing before Gozer has even entered the equation means they’ve changed the mythology and therefore makes no sense given what we know.

Yes the mini pufts are cute and have a couple funny moments. But the marketing just ruined them. Imagine the trailer for Ghostbusters 1 spoiling Mr Stay Puft? One of the funniest gags in the movie would be given away in the trailers. That’s what happens with the mini pufts here. All the best bits were in the trailers.

Anyways, I think we’ve debated this issue into the ground lol. I think we are just going to have to shake internet hands and agree to disagree here otherwise I think we’ll just keep going in circles. If you’ve ever seen “Fiddler on the Roof” there’s a town disagreement over whether or not someone was sold a horse or a mule and through out the play/movie was group shouts “it was a horse!” While the other shouts “it was mule!”. This kinda reminds me a bit if that lol.
#4976135
I'm not going to post loads of posts about it but I'll say I hated this so much. My problems (some covered here)

1) Ghostbusters 1+2 have a cynical viewpoint in its comedy not in its existice and the comedy comes from that. This is fansercice done wrong. Its the opposite more heart and oositivity in story but Use Pufts not for story but just for reference and to sell toys as its existence is "remember this? Now buy our stuff"

2) There was like no comedy a couple of jokes sure but same amount as a drama or something.

3) doing the ego's ghost thing felt so disgustingly designed to make people "omg it's him that's so cool" and I hate when movies use dead actors. I did in star wars etc... its distasteful to me and I hate it. And they made a f****g toy of it.

4) it seemed not like ghostbusters but like stranger things meets goonies then suddenly it turns into ghostbusters 1 for end. Like what?

5) the character assassination of Ray the heart who always sees the good just been that angry and dismissive on phone, egons was a deadbeat dad.

6) it's so uncreative there's a character names podcast! Wtf.

It was horrible. To use the meme / quote "Look How They Massacred My Boy "

That's my stance. If people like good for them. I wont tell you you are wrong to like something I feel the same as I did watching the star wars "sequels" of "Oh you are just nostalgia baiting and add nothing of value and the new characters aren't interesting. Thanks! I hate it" I got this free with my work as we work with amazon (i work wirh websites and we have a deal with amazon to try and encourage marketplace integration) so I get vouchers and free stuff. I still feel ripped off.
#4976142
SSJmole wrote: January 3rd, 2023, 11:21 am I'm not going to post loads of posts about it but I'll say I hated this so much. My problems (some covered here)

1) Ghostbusters 1+2 have a cynical viewpoint in its comedy not in its existice and the comedy comes from that. This is fansercice done wrong. Its the opposite more heart and oositivity in story but Use Pufts not for story but just for reference and to sell toys as its existence is "remember this? Now buy our stuff"

2) There was like no comedy a couple of jokes sure but same amount as a drama or something.

3) doing the ego's ghost thing felt so disgustingly designed to make people "omg it's him that's so cool" and I hate when movies use dead actors. I did in star wars etc... its distasteful to me and I hate it. And they made a f****g toy of it.

4) it seemed not like ghostbusters but like stranger things meets goonies then suddenly it turns into ghostbusters 1 for end. Like what?

5) the character assassination of Ray the heart who always sees the good just been that angry and dismissive on phone, egons was a deadbeat dad.

6) it's so uncreative there's a character names podcast! Wtf.

It was horrible. To use the meme / quote "Look How They Massacred My Boy "

That's my stance. If people like good for them. I wont tell you you are wrong to like something I feel the same as I did watching the star wars "sequels" of "Oh you are just nostalgia baiting and add nothing of value and the new characters aren't interesting. Thanks! I hate it" I got this free with my work as we work with amazon (i work wirh websites and we have a deal with amazon to try and encourage marketplace integration) so I get vouchers and free stuff. I still feel ripped off.
I get where you are coming from. For me I could accept all of it apart from 3 (pretty fundamental) stances in the movie.

1. That data driven Ray didn't believe his data driven buddy Egon.
2. That Egon turned criminal and ended up robbing the Ghostbusters.
3. That Shandor was building a mine WHILE AT THE SAME TIME he was building 55 Central Park West to summon Gozer. Gozer would have been like, make up your mind buddy, where do you want me to manifest?

And yeah: Ray saying "Egon Spengler can burn in hell" was cheap Rian Johnson The Last Jedi Luke, intended to shock the audience and nothing else.

Apart from that all of AF was good in my opinion. Mini Pufts, yeah whatever. Who are we to argue the practicality of the posession of a town?

(no spoilers): To be honest the new Egon's Journal in the Hasbro PP does kind of smooth that out. It explains things from Egon's point of view.

But we have to remember that this movie was Jason Reitmans (character based) venture into Ghostbusters territory. It wasn't GB1 all over again. It was a character movie. And it succeeded in that beautifully. We got a (tiny) bit of GB1 in the last few minutes of the movie which saved it for GB1 lovers. But we shouldn't forget this was Jason's spin.

For me it was a nice way of cracking open the door to GB1 for modern audiences. Reminding them. Slowly, suspensefully. Also with an emotionality that was unexpected and very effective (the ending).

I think (or hope) Firehouse will be more a classic Ghostbusters movie the same way GB1 was. Less character driven and more raw GB1 action.
Last edited by One time on January 3rd, 2023, 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DancingToaster liked this
#4976155
Davideverona wrote: January 3rd, 2023, 3:20 pm What does the Egon Journal says?
I can't explain all of it as it's many pages. But:

This Post Contains Spoilers
#4976192
One time wrote: January 3rd, 2023, 1:20 pm I get where you are coming from. For me I could accept all of it apart from 3 (pretty fundamental) stances in the movie.

1. That data driven Ray didn't believe his data driven buddy Egon.
2. That Egon turned criminal and ended up robbing the Ghostbusters.
3. That Shandor was building a mine WHILE AT THE SAME TIME he was building 55 Central Park West to summon Gozer. Gozer would have been like, make up your mind buddy, where do you want me to manifest?

And yeah: Ray saying "Egon Spengler can burn in hell" was cheap Rian Johnson The Last Jedi Luke, intended to shock the audience and nothing else.

Apart from that all of AF was good in my opinion. Mini Pufts, yeah whatever. Who are we to argue the practicality of the posession of a town?

(no spoilers): To be honest the new Egon's Journal in the Hasbro PP does kind of smooth that out. It explains things from Egon's point of view.

But we have to remember that this movie was Jason Reitmans (character based) venture into Ghostbusters territory. It wasn't GB1 all over again. It was a character movie. And it succeeded in that beautifully. We got a (tiny) bit of GB1 in the last few minutes of the movie which saved it for GB1 lovers. But we shouldn't forget this was Jason's spin.

For me it was a nice way of cracking open the door to GB1 for modern audiences. Reminding them. Slowly, suspensefully. Also with an emotionality that was unexpected and very effective (the ending).

I think (or hope) Firehouse will be more a classic Ghostbusters movie the same way GB1 was. Less character driven and more raw GB1 action.
This basically sums up my opinion of the movie. There's a lot to like about it, and I don't even mind the more character-driven tone. Some of the conflict and bitterness was unnecessary, though, and there were pacing problems.

Is the journal only available with the Hasbro pack? I'd love to read it but I already have a foam pack that I'm not planning on replacing anytime soon 🤪
#4976215
DancingToaster wrote: January 4th, 2023, 10:42 am Is the journal only available with the Hasbro pack? I'd love to read it but I already have a foam pack that I'm not planning on replacing anytime soon 🤪
Unfortunately, yes, it's only available with the Hasbro Haslab Spengler's Proton Pack. Unless ebay sellers start selling the bonus stuff separately.
DancingToaster liked this
Positron Props GB1 Pack Build

Awesome!! Good luck on your build! Tom's shell i[…]

Trailer posted for release for the Frozen Empire u[…]

Trivia, callbacks etc I noticed so far *Cover A *[…]

Matty Trap - Replace Pedal?

Has anyone successfully transferred the pedal elec[…]