GBFans.com

GuyX wrote: ↑March 24th, 2023, 8:56 pm Afterlife was funny. Was it hilarious? No. But it was funny. It was charming. Do we really want Ghostbusters to be what “comedies” are now? The obvious improv styling of Judd Apatow? We tried that already. It didn’t work. Well maybe for some of u it did. And that’s ok. But for most people I don’t think it worked.

Afterlife was one of the first big movies in a long time that wasn’t constantly winking at the audience with stupid “OH MY GOD ISNT THIS SITUTION WE ARE IN INSANE? It’s JUST LIKE “INSERT POPCULTURE REFERENCE” SEE! WEVE ACKNOWLEDGED HOW INSANE IT IS. Wink wink”.

Afterlife was allowed to funny, sad, a little cheesey even. Yes. Cheese. Cheese can be fun. It’s why the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies are so damn likeable. Afterlife wore its heart on its sleeve a bit.

It’s what I love about it. We had the Ghostbusters of the 1980s. & they were of the 1980s. Now it’s time to be that & more. Afterlife never undercut itself. All the emotions, funny, scary & sad, they felt real. They felt earned. We should respect that more.

I’d like this movie to be funny. Definitely. But it’s ok if it needs to be dramatic and sad too. Just earn it, right?

This sums up my thoughts perfectly! If it became an Apatow-style comedy, I'd lose interest really quickly. GB has an undercurrent of irreverence that's charming, but it's not a spoof. A lot of the humor comes from subtle things you catch with repeated viewings, and good observational humor, too.
I'd love for this to be more lighthearted and funny than GBA, but I hope it doesn't lose its heart. Comedians in supporting roles is a good idea.

This sums up my thoughts perfectly! If it became an Apatow-style comedy, I'd lose interest really quickly. GB has an undercurrent of irreverence that's charming, but it's not a spoof. A lot of the humor comes from subtle things you catch with repeated viewings, and good observational humor, too.
I'd love for this to be more lighthearted and funny than GBA, but I hope it doesn't lose its heart. Comedians in supporting roles is a good idea.

If Apatow or Rogen become involved I don't think I can be a part of this.

Ghostbusters has always been about ordinary people in an extraordinary situation and how they react to it.
Harold Ramis said the Ghostbusters reaction to a haunting was a kin to an exterminator reacting to ants.
As said, its the subtle comedy that works for Ghostbusters.
It was in all three films so far.
I don't want actors who are going to come in with big over the top performances and a nudge nudge wino wink to the audience.
Thats not Ghostbusters.

Prime examples of perfect Ghostbusters comedy:
Ray seeing Slimer for the first time.
Peter and Rays reaction to Dana turning into Zuul.
Egon's reaction to Stay Puft.
Ray and Peter busting the Jogger Ghost.
Groobersons reaction to Vinz.
Pheobe's response and comment about Muncher.

Granted there are more, but to me these are prime examples of the humour of Ghostbusters.

timeware wrote: ↑March 24th, 2023, 10:09 pm

This sums up my thoughts perfectly! If it became an Apatow-style comedy, I'd lose interest really quickly. GB has an undercurrent of irreverence that's charming, but it's not a spoof. A lot of the humor comes from subtle things you catch with repeated viewings, and good observational humor, too.
I'd love for this to be more lighthearted and funny than GBA, but I hope it doesn't lose its heart. Comedians in supporting roles is a good idea.

If Apatow or Rogen become involved I don't think I can be a part of this.

I shouldn’t have been so harsh on Apatow. I think 40 Year Old Virgin is super duper funny . & Rogen can be good too. Superbad is 1 of the best movies about friendship & being a teenager + it’s very funny. I think Anchorman is really funny . But then that style of comedy became SO popular it’s like filmmakers forgot how to do it any other way. When the Marvel movies did it, that RDJ shtick that only he can get away with bcuz he’s charisma given human form, that’s when every1 started doing it. It was almost like a new form of acting like how Brando brought/made popular & mainstream realism & naturalism which moved acting away from the stage style of acting. Comedy was now all about that “yes and..” style with a mix of winking @ the audience to acknowledge how phoney it all is.

1 thing about Answer the Call that just bothered me endlessly, & I’m sure I’m not the 1st person to say this, is that no moments were allowed to go without a quip or joke. Which undermined the horror & the drama. & I don’t think the characters were likeable. 1 thing great about the original team was they were friends & didn’t get into any stupid fights or misunderstandings(except when under the influence of negative slime). They didn’t bicker. If Ghostbusters were made today Ray & Peter would get into sum fight about how Ray risked everything & that Peter conned him into going into business, that they aren’t really friends, Peter just uses them for his own ends. I’m sure that would happen. They’d turn something that was a joke & a character trait into this long drawn out fight or misunderstanding. Now u could say it’s more realistic this way but realism ain’t why I go to the movies. I go to the movies to escape reality.

1 thing Afterlife did really well was subtle character based comedy. & that stuff is hard. Carrie Coon is probably 1 of the funnier actors in the movie. & she & Paul Rudd have instant chemistry.

If the new movie just gives us more Carrie Coon/ Paul Rudd with Podcast & Pheobe? We are golden.

I have to be careful about how I word this.

Judd and Seth can get very mean and nasty at times outside their movies. I'm really forcing myself to ignore Seth is voicing Donkey Kong in the Mario Bros. movie coming out. I already bought tickets without knowing that so i'm commited to seeing it.
He did alright with Invincible. It's I have issues with how they conducted themselves a few years ago and i'm not giving out details to prevent arguments. I have my reasons for not liking them.

It's all subjective, but here is how I see it:
Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters 2 and The Real Ghostbusters were comedies that had occasional moments of drama and horror that worked to elevate the comedy. Afterlife was a drama that had moments of comedy to elevate the drama. The balance was fundamentally different and to some of us that felt a little off.

There will always be people who will argue the original wasn't a comedy and they will never, ever be correct. It was designed, built and executed as a vehicle to make people laugh, and it was phenomenally successful at that.

Now, I'm not blind to the fact that there have been variations within the GB universe over the years - arguably the NOW comics and Extreme Ghostbusters favoured situation over comedy - but these are real outliers as far as the mainstream audience is concerned, and they're the people who bring the money. Laughs are expected. I feel some of the critical drubbing Afterlife received was because the balance was off.

I'm fine with Afterlife being what it is as a tribute to Harold and a reflection of Jason and Ivan and a treatise on family love. That's all ok and I enjoy it, but it would be a mistake to do it again.

(And yes, although I personally loved it, I do acknowledge that the other film got the balance wrong too. Too many gags, not enough grounding. Let's not dwell on that one though.)

Ghostbusters isn't Radiohead. It doesn't need to reinvent the wheel every time out. That JMS and Erik Burnham got the balance right repeatedly means it is possible to at least write the lightning striking twice, I'd just love to see that grace on big screen again.

robbritton wrote: ↑March 25th, 2023, 1:22 am It's all subjective, but here is how I see it:
Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters 2 and The Real Ghostbusters were comedies that had occasional moments of drama and horror that worked to elevate the comedy. Afterlife was a drama that had moments of comedy to elevate the drama. The balance was fundamentally different and to some of us that felt a little off.

There will always be people who will argue the original wasn't a comedy and they will never, ever be correct. It was designed, built and executed as a vehicle to make people laugh, and it was phenomenally successful at that.

Now, I'm not blind to the fact that there have been variations within the GB universe over the years - arguably the NOW comics and Extreme Ghostbusters favoured situation over comedy - but these are real outliers as far as the mainstream audience is concerned, and they're the people who bring the money. Laughs are expected. I feel some of the critical drubbing Afterlife received was because the balance was off.

I'm fine with Afterlife being what it is as a tribute to Harold and a reflection of Jason and Ivan and a treatise on family love. That's all ok and I enjoy it, but it would be a mistake to do it again.

(And yes, although I personally loved it, I do acknowledge that the other film got the balance wrong too. Too many gags, not enough grounding. Let's not dwell on that one though.)

Ghostbusters isn't Radiohead. It doesn't need to reinvent the wheel every time out. That JMS and Erik Burnham got the balance right repeatedly means it is possible to at least write the lightning striking twice, I'd just love to see that grace on big screen again.

Afterlife was not a drama with comedy. Not really. It’d be like calling Ghostbusters a horror movie with comedy. Is there more drama than the original? Sure. But there are very few moments of actual human drama. I think calling it a drama with comedy is flat out wrong. I get it’s ur opinion but I don’t think the facts show it’s true. It’s a sci fi mystery thriller with elements of comedy, horror & drama. Would u call Iron Man a drama? No. It has drama in it, along with comedy and action.

As for Timewares Seth Rogen issues… my curiosity is peaked. I thought all Rogen did was smoke weed & talk about smoking weed.

You can message me if you want to know more. I'm not going to de rail the thread.

While I like Afterlife and will likely like "Firehouse", I do wish the franchise as a whole would have stayed more within the more adult tone of the original. Those whimsical music notes in GB2...you knew it was never going to be the same sadly.

robbritton wrote: ↑March 25th, 2023, 1:22 am It's all subjective, but here is how I see it:
Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters 2 and The Real Ghostbusters were comedies that had occasional moments of drama and horror that worked to elevate the comedy. Afterlife was a drama that had moments of comedy to elevate the drama. The balance was fundamentally different and to some of us that felt a little off.

Yeah, the way I put it is that Afterlife felt more like a Jason Reitman movie than a Ghostbusters movie. Obviously it was both of those things, but it felt more of a piece with Jason's previous films than the previous Ghostbusters films. That's why it didn't float my boat.

I hope the new film course-corrects the tone, and it looks like it very well may, fingers crossed.

Afterlife needed a more grounded tone because of its themes with loss, death, and family. It was still overall a comedy with lots of light hearted moments and laughs. It was Egons tribute. It needed a little bittersweet push to sell the message.


Timeware..so if youre gonna point out Seth and Judd. Im gonna address another elephant in the room..Patton Oswalt said some nasty things too. I still like the guy overall, but something bugs me in the back of my mind. I will keep things vague too, but i just wanted to throw that out there.

Just saying, give Emily Alyn Lind brown hair and its a real Sigourney Weaver vibe...

James Acaster in a Ghostbusters film? I mean, of all the " comedians" they could have chosen they think the best is that guy? I mean the quality control has fallen massively since GB2 introduced Peter McNicoll to us. I mean surely the world of comedy can't be that bereft? I hope to god they don't bring back Podcast too.

I never heard of him. Which is fine, i can go in without any preconceived opinion. However i watched some of his standup clips yesterday and..woof.

I just hope his acting is better.

I mean at least its not James Corden..lets be thankful for that.

As with how you mentioned Peter McNicol..

Thats what GB needs. Good character actors that have good comedic chops. William Atherton isnt a comedian, but my god hes a brilliant funny *sshole. Thats kinda the casting’s vibe of afterlife. Character actors know how to scale things back and create subtle humor.

Comedians today tend to crank things to 11 and its exhausting. They might as well dance around honking a bike horn.

I feel like were going a bit backwards with these new additions. However, Patton is a good choice, as ive only seen him in very “troll” like projects. I think hell “get” it.


ill hold full judgement til we see what their other roles are.

Yeah, let's not forget people don't just get the role. They (and others who didn't get it) have to audition for the parts, and only if they are showing enough of what the Jason and co want for the role they will be added to cast.

And even then it's up to debate.

Remember Candy with his dogs?

This was a wholesome tweet. Also, as he is a super GB fan: saying the script is "unbelievably good" has increased my excitement.

BatDan wrote:As with how you mentioned Peter McNicol..

Thats what GB needs. Good character actors that have good comedic chops. William Atherton isnt a comedian, but my god hes a brilliant funny *sshole. Thats kinda the casting’s vibe of afterlife. Character actors know how to scale things back and create subtle humor.

Comedians today tend to crank things to 11 and its exhausting. They might as well dance around honking a bike horn.

The character of Janosz is one of the best things in GB2, and he's not a repeat of anything from the first.
Hilarious, but legitimately creepy.

Dondraper85 wrote:James Acaster in a Ghostbusters film? I mean, of all the " comedians" they could have chosen they think the best is that guy? I mean the quality control has fallen massively since GB2 introduced Peter McNicoll to us. I mean surely the world of comedy can't be that bereft? I hope to god they don't bring back Podcast too.

Aww, Podcast is great! I was expecting to find him a bit annoying, but was pleasantly surprised. He and Phoebe are a fun team.

I agree Podcast was great and I look forward to seeing him again.

Yanoz was a bit of a reapt form GB1 in terms of Louis' character beat being a prototype nerd who lusts for Dana ...

Although I certainly don't want the new film to copy GB2 the way Afterlife copied GB1, it would kinda, maybe, perhaps be cool just to briefly see Janosz in a scene. I imagine Peter MacNicol would be more willing to reprise his character than Rick Moranis...

Dondraper85 wrote: ↑March 25th, 2023, 10:29 am James Acaster in a Ghostbusters film? I mean, of all the " comedians" they could have chosen they think the best is that guy? I mean the quality control has fallen massively since GB2 introduced Peter McNicoll to us. I mean surely the world of comedy can't be that bereft? I hope to god they don't bring back Podcast too.

Why did you put comedian in quotation marks? Acaster is a highly successful professional comedian. He’s a wild card choice because he doesn’t technically act and his vocal delivery will be incomprehensible to American audiences. He’s also talked openly and mined comedy material out of major career disasters, which again makes him a gamble here.

I think Acaster is brilliant but I’m curious to see him perform a character that bounces off Rudd, Oswald and Nanjiani in a convincing way.

Podcast was one of the best (& comedic) characters in Afterlife.

I don’t need to see Janosz again. Jesus guys, Janosz and Oscar, just constantly wanting to be served the same things you’ve already seen and already know even if the context makes no sense. C’mon.

Breaking news. Oswald confirmed as Oscar.

I've made the mistake before but it's "Oswalt" with a "t" for Patton's last name.

Ready your pitchforks folks because I'm about to drop a very UNPOPULAR OPINION

Only die-hard GB fans would want to see a GB movie that is anything but a comedy. Ghostbusters was and is a comedy above all else, and while elements of literally every other genre could be introduced, to try and make the series into something serious and without a focus on making the audience laugh is a mistake. That isn't to say the Ghostbusters themselves are a joke or should be treated like one, but the world outside this message board remembers Ghostbusters as a comedy, with four legendary comedians at the height of their creative peak. Yeah there were horror elements and they were mostly played straight but it was all in service of the comedy.

Sure you could do it and maybe some people would like it, but it would be like making a car with square tires.

Comedy is fine, but when you try to cram it into every character and/or scene like Answer the Call did, that turns off audiences.

Chicken, He Clucked wrote: ↑March 25th, 2023, 6:12 pm I don’t need to see Janosz again. Jesus guys, Janosz and Oscar, just constantly wanting to be served the same things you’ve already seen and already know even if the context makes no sense. C’mon.

I don't "need" to see those characters again either, and I certainly don't want them to appear as primary supporting characters, but, if the context makes sense and there's a legitimate reason for it, what's wrong with seeing them again for five seconds? I mean, we technically saw Dana again in Afterlife -- would it really be that unnatural to see Dana with her son Oscar in certain situations? And Janosz, as someone whose life was saved by the Ghostbusters, could conceivably appear in defense of their reputation, if that was called for... So, I definitely don't want those characters shoehorned in a movie for the mere sake of "fan service," but if there's a legitimate context for them briefly popping up, then why not?

Chicken, He Clucked wrote: ↑March 25th, 2023, 6:12 pm Why did you put comedian in quotation marks? Acaster is a highly successful professional comedian. He’s a wild card choice because he doesn’t technically act and his vocal delivery will be incomprehensible to American audiences. He’s also talked openly and mined comedy material out of major career disasters, which again makes him a gamble here.

I think Acaster is brilliant but I’m curious to see him perform a character that bounces off Rudd, Oswald and Nanjiani in a convincing way.

Or he's just the Josh Gad of this movie, making the sounds the new ghost makes. Or the guy in a Tony Scoleri-esque ghost suit. If he's playing a human character, I'm still keeping an open mind. If it were 1988 and forums existed, I think we would be having a similar discussion about Kurt Fuller. At the time of being cast for GB2, he was a real estate agent by day, theater by night with a couple years of TV bit roles? I think Jack Hardemeyer turned out all right. Could be the same deal with Acaster. If not, well, we know the place to go to vent. lol.

mrmichaelt wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 2:31 am If not, well, we know the place to go to vent. lol.

Don't let this be the place. Don't let this be the place.

mrmichaelt wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 2:31 am It's here.

DAMNIT.

Ah well, at least we have seen the movie by then and know what to complain about.

mrmichaelt wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 2:31 am

Chicken, He Clucked wrote: ↑March 25th, 2023, 6:12 pm Why did you put comedian in quotation marks? Acaster is a highly successful professional comedian. He’s a wild card choice because he doesn’t technically act and his vocal delivery will be incomprehensible to American audiences. He’s also talked openly and mined comedy material out of major career disasters, which again makes him a gamble here.

I think Acaster is brilliant but I’m curious to see him perform a character that bounces off Rudd, Oswald and Nanjiani in a convincing way.

Or he's just the Josh Gad of this movie, making the sounds the new ghost makes. Or the guy in a Tony Scoleri-esque ghost suit. If he's playing a human character, I'm still keeping an open mind. If it were 1988 and forums existed, I think we would be having a similar discussion about Kurt Fuller. At the time of being cast for GB2, he was a real estate agent by day, theater by night with a couple years of TV bit roles? I think Jack Hardemeyer turned out all right. Could be the same deal with Acaster. If not, well, we know the place to go to vent. lol.

If it were 1984 and forums existed we'd be worried about simple things like nap time and recess. Most of us were four years old sipping on our juice boxes watching he-man or Transformers. Our parents would be debating the pros and cons of Jimmy Carter or Ronald Regan, while nit picking at the Breakfast Club and people would be downloading pictures of Kelly Le Brock.

There's a good chance 1 of the 4 new members of the cast is the villain...who you thinking?

James kinda reminds me of Peck in his manarisms.