Discuss Ghostbusters: Afterlife, released on November 19, 2021 and directed by Jason Reitman.
User avatar
By mrmichaelt
#4968587
RichardLess wrote: April 4th, 2022, 6:33 pm Any person with a brain at Sony right now is looking at this franchise and thinking, monetarily, unless we do something and do it fast, this franchises best days are behind it and we have a ceiling on what this franchise can do. That’s not a good place to be.
The same studio that just released a Morbius movie and is making Kraven and Madame Web movies as part of its separate Spider-Man universe. Sony definitely knows what we want and how to grow a franchise. :P
zeta otaku, Kingpin liked this
User avatar
By zeta otaku
#4968592
mrmichaelt wrote: April 4th, 2022, 9:27 pm
RichardLess wrote: April 4th, 2022, 6:33 pm Any person with a brain at Sony right now is looking at this franchise and thinking, monetarily, unless we do something and do it fast, this franchises best days are behind it and we have a ceiling on what this franchise can do. That’s not a good place to be.
The same studio that just released a Morbius movie and is making Kraven and Madame Web movies as part of its separate Spider-Man universe. Sony definitely knows what we want and how to grow a franchise. :P
After No Way Home, I wanted nothing more than for Garfield to get a third Amazing Spider-man film... now all that energy has turned into never wanting them to make another Spider-man related film ever again. Just let Marvel play with it's toys...
mrmichaelt liked this
By philmorgan81
#4968595
Well even if it wasn’t as big a success as Spider-Man, I’d say it did great enough numbers to get more projects moving forward. I have no idea what those projects will be. If they were going to move forward with another live action film Afterlife would be a hard act to follow. I think Jason did a great job bringing the franchise to a close. I mean we now know what became of the original crew and have a great idea of where the world may be going. The new video game is a great idea of where that world is going as well. Winston funding the franchise bringing in new recruits and being a mentor. Ray staying on in Rays Occult Book Store and being a mentor as well and passing on his wisdom of Supernatural Lore.

I have no idea what the future holds without Ivan Reitman at Ghost Corps. I am not sure Jason would want to direct a sequel. I am curious if he will step in as a producer for future projects like his father. That would leave it open for different directors to play in the franchise like Jason had suggested.

I really do hope that Sony lets IDW play with the IP some more. That way even more stories can be told that take place before the events of Afterlife. :)

I would love to see Egon install the Gunner Seat in the Ecto 1 and design the RTV. :):):)
WCat2000 liked this
User avatar
By WCat2000
#4968596
Some people just have it out for something. Spider-Man was only brought up for the sake of “debate”. Since it’s not about the difference in scope why use the most extravagant example?

Home release absolutely counts. That’s still real money. Especially with On Demand/streaming being so popular. Jason and Gil might have gotten signed beforehand but they still got signed. It wasn’t for fun.

Exact box office, scores, pandemic, GB’16 aside Ghostbusters Afterlife was clearly successful. It made a great profit by normal standards and was very well received regardless of those saying how wrong it was. None of that other stuff really matters. The pandemic messed with everything of course. Not trying to make light of it. It overcame basically a 30 year hiatus.
deadderek liked this
User avatar
By Chicken, He Clucked
#4968598
RichardLess wrote: April 4th, 2022, 6:33 pm “If Sony are Smart”

Ha.


You didn’t like EGB? Man. I thought EGB was terrific. Way ahead of it’s time. You may find a character in a wheel chair as a Ghostbuster forgettable but as someone who grew up with disabled family members? Man. Garret ruled. The show was dark, legit scary and had some actual funny moments. I agree the animation was lacking…but that was a good show. Episodes like “Darkness at Noon”, “Deadliners” “Back in the Saddle”, “Killjoys” “Dry Spell” & “Slimers Sacrifice” are better imo than 95% of RGB episodes. Plus that song remix effing slaps.

And I love GB2 and you are right that Batman definitely ate some of its box office but Jesus…not that much. 112m? With Batman GB2 should’ve been able to hit 150-160m. For some reason GB2 got a bum rap in 1989.

But yeah I read a lot of what you wrote and it just reads like a list of excuses. I don’t care if the movie is Spider Man or the 2nd coming of Jesus. When you have a movie doing 2 billion dollars and your movie can’t beat the total of a a disliked sequel from 1989? I mean come on. I bought into the “oh this is actually pretty good”. But then I realized I was buying into the studio’s PR. I don’t expect the movie to make 500 million but I think anything below 300 worldwide and 150 domestic is a huge disappointment.

Any person with a brain at Sony right now is looking at this franchise and thinking, monetarily, unless we do something and do it fast, this franchises best days are behind it and we have a ceiling on what this franchise can do. That’s not a good place to be.

I don’t know what the answer is…but if Sony wants to grow this franchise, I don’t think it’s Jason Reitman. He didn’t make this movie the one of two things that gets butts in seats. He didn’t make it funny and he didn’t make it epic. And he didn’t utilize the original cast in a prominent way. So ok. 3 things.

Frankly I think making the Kids the focus of the story was in retrospect a massive mistake. Same with casting the kid from Stranger Things. The movie was never able to shed that “rip off” moniker, fair or not. And I liked Phoebe..I do. And Podcast. But how do you have Paul Rudd not put on a GB uniform and bust some ghosts? I think if the movie went in that direction? Adults instead of kids, you’ve got a bigger movie. Having the kids be the Ghostbusters leaves the movie with nowhere to go. Phoebe is what? 13?

Anyways. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I do think you should give EGB another shot if you haven’t seen it in awhile. It’s not perfect but I enjoy it.
Oh man, I totally merged your posts with deadderek’s in my head. But anyways, I have a half hour lunch and what better way to spend it…

I’m not going to convince you not to like EGB but I just don’t think the characterisation was ever good or aged well. I watched it recently. The character design is ugly. Tonally, Hellraiser is an odd reference choice. The episodes were too short and structurally way less diverse than RGB. Wheelchair isn’t a character trait, (but kudos for the disability rep even if the “Extreme” banner is patronising). The remix is appalling. But each to their own.

As a fan I’d be happy with Sony pushing out smaller scale movies with regularity in acknowledgement of the franchise’s ceiling, than abandoning it entirely and rebooting in another decade.

Your expectation that Afterlife would be funny (subjective - it is gently funny), epic (I think it delivered spectacle so don’t really understand what you mean here) or more prominent Ghostbusters…. I guarantee an earlier version of the script exists with more OGB involvement. Murray just isn’t available above a brief cameo. Not Jason’s choice. I think Jason and Gil, with Ivan’s guidance have a grasp of this IP, and it felt like Ghostbusters to me, so if they can infuse that with a new director or comedic talent (either scriptwriter or improv actor) then I think a follow-up to Afterlife could do very well.

You’re not sure about the kids!? Phoebe is the best thing in the movie! I don’t get why anyone would care about Rudd suiting up. He isn’t a Ghostbuster. Something about him being a representative of the fans, idk? Just wanting to see Paul Rudd in the uniform and owning the action figure? I don’t get it, really. Maybe the second half of the movie could’ve gone in a different direction to allow for it, and the OGB’s could’ve featured… but Afterlife tells a complete story and was obviously operating with budgetary and logistical constraints. I agree to agree to disagree!
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4968626
Chicken, He Clucked wrote: April 5th, 2022, 5:56 am
RichardLess wrote: April 4th, 2022, 6:33 pm “If Sony are Smart”

Ha.


You didn’t like EGB? Man. I thought EGB was terrific. Way ahead of it’s time. You may find a character in a wheel chair as a Ghostbuster forgettable but as someone who grew up with disabled family members? Man. Garret ruled. The show was dark, legit scary and had some actual funny moments. I agree the animation was lacking…but that was a good show. Episodes like “Darkness at Noon”, “Deadliners” “Back in the Saddle”, “Killjoys” “Dry Spell” & “Slimers Sacrifice” are better imo than 95% of RGB episodes. Plus that song remix effing slaps.

And I love GB2 and you are right that Batman definitely ate some of its box office but Jesus…not that much. 112m? With Batman GB2 should’ve been able to hit 150-160m. For some reason GB2 got a bum rap in 1989.

But yeah I read a lot of what you wrote and it just reads like a list of excuses. I don’t care if the movie is Spider Man or the 2nd coming of Jesus. When you have a movie doing 2 billion dollars and your movie can’t beat the total of a a disliked sequel from 1989? I mean come on. I bought into the “oh this is actually pretty good”. But then I realized I was buying into the studio’s PR. I don’t expect the movie to make 500 million but I think anything below 300 worldwide and 150 domestic is a huge disappointment.

Any person with a brain at Sony right now is looking at this franchise and thinking, monetarily, unless we do something and do it fast, this franchises best days are behind it and we have a ceiling on what this franchise can do. That’s not a good place to be.

I don’t know what the answer is…but if Sony wants to grow this franchise, I don’t think it’s Jason Reitman. He didn’t make this movie the one of two things that gets butts in seats. He didn’t make it funny and he didn’t make it epic. And he didn’t utilize the original cast in a prominent way. So ok. 3 things.

Frankly I think making the Kids the focus of the story was in retrospect a massive mistake. Same with casting the kid from Stranger Things. The movie was never able to shed that “rip off” moniker, fair or not. And I liked Phoebe..I do. And Podcast. But how do you have Paul Rudd not put on a GB uniform and bust some ghosts? I think if the movie went in that direction? Adults instead of kids, you’ve got a bigger movie. Having the kids be the Ghostbusters leaves the movie with nowhere to go. Phoebe is what? 13?

Anyways. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I do think you should give EGB another shot if you haven’t seen it in awhile. It’s not perfect but I enjoy it.
Oh man, I totally merged your posts with deadderek’s in my head. But anyways, I have a half hour lunch and what better way to spend it…

I’m not going to convince you not to like EGB but I just don’t think the characterisation was ever good or aged well. I watched it recently. The character design is ugly. Tonally, Hellraiser is an odd reference choice. The episodes were too short and structurally way less diverse than RGB. Wheelchair isn’t a character trait, (but kudos for the disability rep even if the “Extreme” banner is patronising). The remix is appalling. But each to their own.

As a fan I’d be happy with Sony pushing out smaller scale movies with regularity in acknowledgement of the franchise’s ceiling, than abandoning it entirely and rebooting in another decade.

Your expectation that Afterlife would be funny (subjective - it is gently funny), epic (I think it delivered spectacle so don’t really understand what you mean here) or more prominent Ghostbusters…. I guarantee an earlier version of the script exists with more OGB involvement. Murray just isn’t available above a brief cameo. Not Jason’s choice. I think Jason and Gil, with Ivan’s guidance have a grasp of this IP, and it felt like Ghostbusters to me, so if they can infuse that with a new director or comedic talent (either scriptwriter or improv actor) then I think a follow-up to Afterlife could do very well.

You’re not sure about the kids!? Phoebe is the best thing in the movie! I don’t get why anyone would care about Rudd suiting up. He isn’t a Ghostbuster. Something about him being a representative of the fans, idk? Just wanting to see Paul Rudd in the uniform and owning the action figure? I don’t get it, really. Maybe the second half of the movie could’ve gone in a different direction to allow for it, and the OGB’s could’ve featured… but Afterlife tells a complete story and was obviously operating with budgetary and logistical constraints. I agree to agree to disagree!
Yes a Wheelchair isn’t a character trait. Who said it was? What an odd thing to say. That character is not defined by his wheelchair. That’s the entire point. Garret is an adrenaline Junky who just happens to be in a wheelchair. The characters are all extremely well defined. Come on. The episode Deadliners uses the design of Hellraiser, the plot is different. It’s the trapped author who designed those characters, they aren’t the actual ghosts. Structurally way less diverse?. You mean the show has a formula? Yes. That is something I agree with. RGB had more experimental storylines but…they also had over a hundred episodes & multiple seasons. The title is lame. It was the 1990s tho. What are you gonna do? Everything was “EXTREME…TO THE MAX”. Honestly Real Ghostbusters is a pretty lame title too. And have you seen some of the design in that show? Yikes…a lot of it looked like reject Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle cartoon designs. EGB has legit tension and scares. RGB was always so safe & tensionless. Collect Call of Cthulhu being an exception. In EGB there are some moments I still don’t know how they got em passed censorship.

You misunderstood my point about funny and epic. I’m saying it needs to be those two things to get butts in seats in todays market. I was not talking about my personal preference. I’m saying if they want to succeed and make more money that’s what it needs. They need scale for the international audiences and the comedy for domestic. GBA was not epic in the least. It had very little spectacle(which I’m fine with. I don’t need constant Ghostbusting or big action. That beings said…an increased threat in the 3rd act was needed. An extra oomph. The 3rd act is where the movie falls apart). There’s a way to do those things and market them properly.

And yeah the kids being the main focus and drive was a mistake. Trevor was a big nothing, Lucky was worse. Podcast and Phoebe were great but having them be the ghostbusters was stupid. Maybe have it for a scene. But…how do I explain this? At no point did any of the stakes feel real. In GB84 there’s a real sense of danger at points, especially the crossing the streams bit. With the kid characters I don’t invest in them as Ghostbusters. They can’t do it as a job, they are so young it takes some of the interpersonal relationship stuff away. It leaves them nowhere to go.

What do you mean you don’t get why we would care if Paul Rudd put on a GB uniform? The character is a huge science geek & fan. We care because he cares. Because he was the one character that felt like he could have stepped into the 1984 movie and busted ghosts with the OGB’s. As for the toy I’m not sure what you are getting at here…they released a Grooberson toy and he didn’t bust ghosts. Or are you getting at there’s wish fulfillment thing where Grooberson represents the fandom? I duno. I don’t play with toys. My parents didn’t believe in them.

Having Paul Rudd be a ghostbuster would take minimal restructuring. Have the Sherrif become Vinz. Or Trevor and Lucky be the two who get possessed. Just imaging Rudd all decked out in GB gear…it gives me a geekgasm. Huge missed opportunity. It would give the franchise somewhere to go. Suddenly him and Carrie Coon as two new GB’s? I’m down with that. Maybe the Sherrif becomes the 3rd member in a sequel. Plus suddenly having Paul Rudd in the trailer with a proton pack? I think maybe that gives some extra incentive for ticket buyers. I think the Stranger Things vibe turned off alot of people. Infact I know it did.

And I think I read an interview or podcast with Jason Reitman where he said the OGB’s were never in the movie more than they are now because it wasn’t their story. He said something about being intimidated by the characters and so the focus was always going to be on these new people. So no I don’t think there was ever any draft with an expanded role.

This movie was a greatest hits album. Things happened not because the story demanded it but because *EASTER EGG* and *FAN SERVICE*. Dana giving Venkman the psychic test. Beyond idiotic. Mini pufts. Beyond stupid. Ray not believing Egon was ridiculous. The kids putting in the GB uniforms and they fit..extra dumb. The OGB’s showing up Deus Ex Machina style? Lame.

I think the movie needed an F word. Just one. From Dan Aykroyd. I think they played the “Are you a god” scene all wrong. If you are going to do a callback like that…give it some juice.

Gozer: “Are You a God?”

Ray smiles. He’s been waiting 36 years for this.
Ray: F**k Yes I’m a God! I’m Zeus Reborn & I’ve got a thunderbolt with your name on it. Here. Open up and say “Awe”(They fire on Gozer)

Or do the opposite where instead of an F word he tries to exude confidence but it comes off awkward due to the kids being present. He goes to confidently swear but he catches himself because kids are present.

Ray: Am I a god? Fffuuu..(Ray, about to say the “F” word nervously clocks the kids and adjusts a more family friendly tone)..I mean…Yah you’re, uh, you’re god damn(Winston clears throat loudly reminding Ray of the kids)..sorry…you’re, uh, you’re darn tootin’ I’m a God. Yep. That’s me. Raymond Fitzgerald Stanz. “God”. Now feel my wrath…bitch!” Ray, Winston and Venkman fire away!
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4968627
WCat2000 wrote: April 5th, 2022, 4:19 am Some people just have it out for something. Spider-Man was only brought up for the sake of “debate”. Since it’s not about the difference in scope why use the most extravagant example?

Home release absolutely counts. That’s still real money. Especially with On Demand/streaming being so popular. Jason and Gil might have gotten signed beforehand but they still got signed. It wasn’t for fun.

Exact box office, scores, pandemic, GB’16 aside Ghostbusters Afterlife was clearly successful. It made a great profit by normal standards and was very well received regardless of those saying how wrong it was. None of that other stuff really matters. The pandemic messed with everything of course. Not trying to make light of it. It overcame basically a 30 year hiatus.
You have to understand how the corporate world of Hollywood works. Yes eventually GBA will make a profit. But these companies are separated into divisions. Each division has a budget and a profit target. So when GBA losses money on theatrical, well guess what? The people who run that division aren’t looking at Ghostbusters the same way they would otherwise. Theatrical division of Sony wants a profit, the home video division wants a profit.

As for using the most extravagant example in Spider-Man…well it was a fellow Sony movie so that’s why & it’s size difference helped see the vast gulph in audience size so that the pandemic can’t be used as an excuse when a movie is making 2 billion dollars. Only 3-4 movies in the history of movie making have crossed that 2 billion mark and one of them happened in a time when people are utilizing a worldwide pandemic as an excuse for why certain movies didn’t reach their potential.
But again, Venom is another example. So dig this. Venom 1 and Venom 2 are both related to GB16 and GBA box office wise. How? Both movies grossed almost the exact same amount as the previous movie. Venom 1 made 213 domestic and Venom 2 made 213 domestic. GBA made 129 domestic and GB16 made 128.

GBA did not make a “great” profit. That is untrue. We don’t even 100% know for sure if it’s made any profit no less “great”. Remembering the marketing money and the split with theatres…it’s hard to say without knowing exactly what the marketing budget was. We can safely say it would’ve been at least 50 million. At least. But I’ve had these conversations before so no point in repeating them.

There will be more GB films. No guessing about that. But the uncertainty regarding the franchises ultimate potential doesn’t give me confidence Sony is going to be treating this property as the legacy crown jewel it should be. I don’t want a Men in Black international situation with GB.
User avatar
By WCat2000
#4968632
RichardLess wrote: April 6th, 2022, 3:43 am
WCat2000 wrote: April 5th, 2022, 4:19 am Some people just have it out for something. Spider-Man was only brought up for the sake of “debate”. Since it’s not about the difference in scope why use the most extravagant example?

Home release absolutely counts. That’s still real money. Especially with On Demand/streaming being so popular. Jason and Gil might have gotten signed beforehand but they still got signed. It wasn’t for fun.

Exact box office, scores, pandemic, GB’16 aside Ghostbusters Afterlife was clearly successful. It made a great profit by normal standards and was very well received regardless of those saying how wrong it was. None of that other stuff really matters. The pandemic messed with everything of course. Not trying to make light of it. It overcame basically a 30 year hiatus.
You have to understand how the corporate world of Hollywood works. Yes eventually GBA will make a profit. But these companies are separated into divisions. Each division has a budget and a profit target. So when GBA losses money on theatrical, well guess what? The people who run that division aren’t looking at Ghostbusters the same way they would otherwise. Theatrical division of Sony wants a profit, the home video division wants a profit.

As for using the most extravagant example in Spider-Man…well it was a fellow Sony movie so that’s why & it’s size difference helped see the vast gulph in audience size so that the pandemic can’t be used as an excuse when a movie is making 2 billion dollars. Only 3-4 movies in the history of movie making have crossed that 2 billion mark and one of them happened in a time when people are utilizing a worldwide pandemic as an excuse for why certain movies didn’t reach their potential.
But again, Venom is another example. So dig this. Venom 1 and Venom 2 are both related to GB16 and GBA box office wise. How? Both movies grossed almost the exact same amount as the previous movie. Venom 1 made 213 domestic and Venom 2 made 213 domestic. GBA made 129 domestic and GB16 made 128.

GBA did not make a “great” profit. That is untrue. We don’t even 100% know for sure if it’s made any profit no less “great”. Remembering the marketing money and the split with theatres…it’s hard to say without knowing exactly what the marketing budget was. We can safely say it would’ve been at least 50 million. At least. But I’ve had these conversations before so no point in repeating them.

There will be more GB films. No guessing about that. But the uncertainty regarding the franchises ultimate potential doesn’t give me confidence Sony is going to be treating this property as the legacy crown jewel it should be. I don’t want a Men in Black international situation with GB.
So what did Afterlife’s box office need to be for it to be considered successful then?

Not every movie under the same studio is gonna perform the same. Is GB’16 supposed to be the “goal post”? It should have significantly surpassed it? (nothing against it either, I enjoyed it). If it never happened this would be the only gauge for a modern day GB movie...and it did great.

The similarity shows at least the same amount of interest still exists and more people saw GB’16 than expected because it’s worldwide box office is bigger...but it was in normal conditions. Not saying Afterlife would have skyrocketed without the pandemic but it had some impact. The delays. Not just attendance.

Since you’re sure there will be more GB movies why do you insist on proving Afterlife was unsuccessful? We get it. You didn’t like it.
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4968640
WCat2000 wrote: April 6th, 2022, 5:41 am
RichardLess wrote: April 6th, 2022, 3:43 am

You have to understand how the corporate world of Hollywood works. Yes eventually GBA will make a profit. But these companies are separated into divisions. Each division has a budget and a profit target. So when GBA losses money on theatrical, well guess what? The people who run that division aren’t looking at Ghostbusters the same way they would otherwise. Theatrical division of Sony wants a profit, the home video division wants a profit.

As for using the most extravagant example in Spider-Man…well it was a fellow Sony movie so that’s why & it’s size difference helped see the vast gulph in audience size so that the pandemic can’t be used as an excuse when a movie is making 2 billion dollars. Only 3-4 movies in the history of movie making have crossed that 2 billion mark and one of them happened in a time when people are utilizing a worldwide pandemic as an excuse for why certain movies didn’t reach their potential.
But again, Venom is another example. So dig this. Venom 1 and Venom 2 are both related to GB16 and GBA box office wise. How? Both movies grossed almost the exact same amount as the previous movie. Venom 1 made 213 domestic and Venom 2 made 213 domestic. GBA made 129 domestic and GB16 made 128.

GBA did not make a “great” profit. That is untrue. We don’t even 100% know for sure if it’s made any profit no less “great”. Remembering the marketing money and the split with theatres…it’s hard to say without knowing exactly what the marketing budget was. We can safely say it would’ve been at least 50 million. At least. But I’ve had these conversations before so no point in repeating them.

There will be more GB films. No guessing about that. But the uncertainty regarding the franchises ultimate potential doesn’t give me confidence Sony is going to be treating this property as the legacy crown jewel it should be. I don’t want a Men in Black international situation with GB.
So what did Afterlife’s box office need to be for it to be considered successful then?

Not every movie under the same studio is gonna perform the same. Is GB’16 supposed to be the “goal post”? It should have significantly surpassed it? (nothing against it either, I enjoyed it). If it never happened this would be the only gauge for a modern day GB movie...and it did great.

The similarity shows at least the same amount of interest still exists and more people saw GB’16 than expected because it’s worldwide box office is bigger...but it was in normal conditions. Not saying Afterlife would have skyrocketed without the pandemic but it had some impact. The delays. Not just attendance.

Since you’re sure there will be more GB movies why do you insist on proving Afterlife was unsuccessful? We get it. You didn’t like it.
Usually making 3x the budget is a good way to make sure a movie will earn a profit. That usually covers the theatrical split & marketing. I’ve read some people say 3.5x but 3 is usually a safe bet.

As for why I’m trying to prove GBA was unsuccessful. Well I see people insisting it was a success & some people tend to lose objectivity when they are fans of things.

GB16 was a failure because it cost so much and made so little. No it’s not a goalpost. Just the last GB released & it’s a decent measuring stick to judge franchise growth. The similarities show the franchise is stagnant & if Sony can’t make money theatrically on a 75m dollar budget, that doesn’t leave them a lot of room.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4968645
RichardLess wrote: April 6th, 2022, 3:00 am And yeah the kids being the main focus and drive was a mistake. Trevor was a big nothing, Lucky was worse. Podcast and Phoebe were great but having them be the ghostbusters was stupid. Maybe have it for a scene. But…how do I explain this? At no point did any of the stakes feel real. In GB84 there’s a real sense of danger at points, especially the crossing the streams bit. With the kid characters I don’t invest in them as Ghostbusters. They can’t do it as a job, they are so young it takes some of the interpersonal relationship stuff away. It leaves them nowhere to go.



And I think I read an interview or podcast with Jason Reitman where he said the OGB’s were never in the movie more than they are now because it wasn’t their story. He said something about being intimidated by the characters and so the focus was always going to be on these new people. So no I don’t think there was ever any draft with an expanded role.

This movie was a greatest hits album. Things happened not because the story demanded it but because *EASTER EGG* and *FAN SERVICE*. Dana giving Venkman the psychic test. Beyond idiotic. Mini pufts. Beyond stupid. Ray not believing Egon was ridiculous. The kids putting in the GB uniforms and they fit..extra dumb. The OGB’s showing up Deus Ex Machina style? Lame.
I liked the kids, but just from a sales point of view… The movie, like you said, is not particularly epic. It centres around kids in the middle of a prairie, and is almost complete devoid of an antagonist. It feels like Gozer was copy and pasted in. A powerful demigod shows up, let’s its form be chosen, and turns into a hundred foot marshmallow man? That’s funny and epic. A powerful demigod shows up, rips a man apart, and gets trapped? Not funny, not epic. I’m thrilled that people loved the film, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not a particularly strong movie. Even if the plot holes are forgivable, the plot is still Meatballs-esque. And while it’s funny, it’s not a team of comedic geniuses at their height… It’s more of a comedic grab bag than it is a comedy.

The original busters needed more buildup. All of a sudden they’re just there, repeating copy and pasted dialogue. If we saw Janine assembling them, at least there would have been some tension—will they show up in time? Take some cues from Bladerunner 2049, or No Way Home (ok, Jason would’ve need a crystal ball for this one)… Peter, Ray, and Winston could’ve been woven into the story in a meaningful way without it becoming their story.

People saw the kids, and were worried it would be Stranger Thing meets Ghostbusters. The kids did not make it Stranger Things, but the urge to Ctrl+C > Ctrl+V, I mean pay homage to the original made it Stranger Things-esque.

The movie needed to bring back Peter, Ray, and Winston more carefully. I also think that having Gozer worshippers trying to thwart the kids could have been good. Honestly I expected someone to be spying on Phoebe and Podcast when they went to the mountain. I also think that a new entity, something besides Gozer, should’ve gotten through the portal and become the main antagonist.

Let’s say the antagonist has a lackey who can change voices. Ray knows that Egon is monitoring the paranormal activity, and believes it’s real. But the lackey impersonate Egon, and he and Ray have a falling out. Once Ray learns from Phoebe that Egon has passed away, and immediately starts heading to Summerville.
User avatar
By CitizenBuster
#4968647
Hopefully it was successful in the sense that it'll lead to more Ghostbusters stuff in the near future. As far as Afterlife itself, it was not very good in my opinion. I hate the way Egon was handled. I think Harold himself would of rolled his eyes at the ghost ending. And the containment unit was just left unattended in a Starbucks. Bullsh#t.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By timeware
#4968648
What really hurt the film was lack of advertising. We had missed opportunities with Holiday advertising that could have brought in the views. Seriously around Halloween they could have had mini pufts thrown on everything.

The pandemic was a huge hurdle to overcome but it was doable.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4968652
timeware wrote: April 6th, 2022, 1:06 pm What really hurt the film was lack of advertising. We had missed opportunities with Holiday advertising that could have brought in the views. Seriously around Halloween they could have had mini pufts thrown on everything.

The pandemic was a huge hurdle to overcome but it was doable.
It's probably the same reason why there wasn't a Superbowl commercial, they'd probably severely streamlined the advertising budget, possibly in response to the learned experiences with what was spent on Answer The Call's advertising versus the response/return they got from the public.
User avatar
By WCat2000
#4968666
RichardLess wrote: April 6th, 2022, 9:30 am
WCat2000 wrote: April 6th, 2022, 5:41 am
So what did Afterlife’s box office need to be for it to be considered successful then?

Not every movie under the same studio is gonna perform the same. Is GB’16 supposed to be the “goal post”? It should have significantly surpassed it? (nothing against it either, I enjoyed it). If it never happened this would be the only gauge for a modern day GB movie...and it did great.

The similarity shows at least the same amount of interest still exists and more people saw GB’16 than expected because it’s worldwide box office is bigger...but it was in normal conditions. Not saying Afterlife would have skyrocketed without the pandemic but it had some impact. The delays. Not just attendance.

Since you’re sure there will be more GB movies why do you insist on proving Afterlife was unsuccessful? We get it. You didn’t like it.
Usually making 3x the budget is a good way to make sure a movie will earn a profit. That usually covers the theatrical split & marketing. I’ve read some people say 3.5x but 3 is usually a safe bet.

As for why I’m trying to prove GBA was unsuccessful. Well I see people insisting it was a success & some people tend to lose objectivity when they are fans of things.

GB16 was a failure because it cost so much and made so little. No it’s not a goalpost. Just the last GB released & it’s a decent measuring stick to judge franchise growth. The similarities show the franchise is stagnant & if Sony can’t make money theatrically on a 75m dollar budget, that doesn’t leave them a lot of room.
Ya GB’16 cost too much but this is why I don’t like these discussions. If it had a reasonably lower budget it would have been deemed more successful. I understand you always want a bigger return but it’s somewhat of a double standard when comparing movies.

Speaking only on Afterlife it had a much, much lower budget. Overall it’s made $197m as far as we know. $200 if you count home sales which I do for the moment because of the unusual release, however it’s split. Either way you honestly think this is bad for a $75m budget?

You call it stagnant but there’s clearly interest for more movies and things. You’re equating other franchise’s numbers as GB falling behind.
User avatar
By tylergfoster
#4968668
RichardLess wrote: April 3rd, 2022, 8:32 amYou are 100% right about Sony not giving this franchise the tender love and care it’s due. Look at what Paramount is doing with Star Trek right now. You may not like the results but they are investing MILLIONS upon MiLlions. They realized their Trek movies can’t compete and weren’t making enough so what did they do? They bit the bullet and launched numerous shows and are growing the brand. They even have a new directors edition of Star Trek TMP getting remastered with new FX & scenes(after they didn’t future proof the previous version). They are investing in their biggest IP. Sony couldn’t even manage to do Spider-Man right without having to go to Marvel and say “help us please. Show us the way”
I mean, I said this many times before Afterlife came out, and maybe at this point you'll at least consider the possibility: maybe the Ghostbusters fandom just has a ceiling on it. Maybe it's not a behemoth waiting to happen because maybe the things people like about it were lightning in a bottle that couldn't fully be replicated in 1989 or a hypothetical 1992 movie, and then it's even harder 35+ years later. Obviously, I love Ghostbusters as much as anyone, so this is not meant to be anything but a simple objective consideration of the performance of the last two movies. The pandemic is definitely a factor, but both 21st century movies hit the same basic financial ceiling, which to me means something. In any case, it seems natural to consider every possibility, and so, whether we like it or not, I'm sure Sony weighs the possibility that there just isn't a clear way to capitalize on Ghostbusters despite it being a hugely valuable merch mover and is clearly a beloved movie. Maybe Sony pumps millions upon millions into a bunch of new shows and movies and they all flop?

I also want to reiterate that even if Sony and Marvel teamed up, it is still Sony that is making these movies. The MCU association helps because Spider-Man is a popular character and the MCU is beloved, so of course they want to see the character in the MCU. But I think the incredible, exponential success of No Way Home (which, again, is one of those movies that Sony is as creatively responsible for as Marvel) is evidence that Sony's work on these movies is meaningful to people as well -- if it were all Disney, you wouldn't have seen calls to make ASM3 go viral on social media afterward. They launched a successful Venom franchise (no matter how you or I feel about it) and even managed to make Morbius into some kind of success even though it really seems like everyone thinks it looks like a joke.
WCat2000 wrote: April 6th, 2022, 8:49 pmSpeaking only on Afterlife it had a much, much lower budget. Overall it’s made $197m as far as we know. $200 if you count home sales which I do for the moment because of the unusual release, however it’s split. Either way you honestly think this is bad for a $75m budget?

You call it stagnant but there’s clearly interest for more movies and things. You’re equating other franchise’s numbers as GB falling behind.
It made $200m in theaters. I posted it in another thread somewhere on the board but I found some Japanese numbers, and the one Japanese number I found actually got it to exactly $200m. TheNumbers.com has a $39m figure for the 2016 movie on video, and I think it's safe to imagine that the new one did at least $30m (probably more, but let's be conservative). I imagine they would've preferred to hit $230m in theaters alone, but that's still 3x the budget.
WCat2000 liked this
User avatar
By WCat2000
#4968673
So are the numbers that are available out of date or something?

I looked at that website too. thought GB’16 home sales were all-time. They have Afterlife’s at $5m (I could have sworn it was 3, guess I was looking at Blu Rays). Makes sense to me since it’s only been a few months.

I have no idea how long home sales are tallied after becoming available for purchase/rent but I’m counting the home sales because it was released digitally less than 2 months after theaters. I know home releases are earlier nowadays but wasn’t that faster?

As for this being GB’s ceiling, I guess it’s possible. I never thought of $200m + as a bad position. Not for being on hiatus so long.
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4968676
tylergfoster wrote: April 6th, 2022, 10:03 pm
RichardLess wrote: April 3rd, 2022, 8:32 amYou are 100% right about Sony not giving this franchise the tender love and care it’s due. Look at what Paramount is doing with Star Trek right now. You may not like the results but they are investing MILLIONS upon MiLlions. They realized their Trek movies can’t compete and weren’t making enough so what did they do? They bit the bullet and launched numerous shows and are growing the brand. They even have a new directors edition of Star Trek TMP getting remastered with new FX & scenes(after they didn’t future proof the previous version). They are investing in their biggest IP. Sony couldn’t even manage to do Spider-Man right without having to go to Marvel and say “help us please. Show us the way”
I mean, I said this many times before Afterlife came out, and maybe at this point you'll at least consider the possibility: maybe the Ghostbusters fandom just has a ceiling on it. Maybe it's not a behemoth waiting to happen because maybe the things people like about it were lightning in a bottle that couldn't fully be replicated in 1989 or a hypothetical 1992 movie, and then it's even harder 35+ years later. Obviously, I love Ghostbusters as much as anyone, so this is not meant to be anything but a simple objective consideration of the performance of the last two movies. The pandemic is definitely a factor, but both 21st century movies hit the same basic financial ceiling, which to me means something. In any case, it seems natural to consider every possibility, and so, whether we like it or not, I'm sure Sony weighs the possibility that there just isn't a clear way to capitalize on Ghostbusters despite it being a hugely valuable merch mover and is clearly a beloved movie. Maybe Sony pumps millions upon millions into a bunch of new shows and movies and they all flop?

I also want to reiterate that even if Sony and Marvel teamed up, it is still Sony that is making these movies. The MCU association helps because Spider-Man is a popular character and the MCU is beloved, so of course they want to see the character in the MCU. But I think the incredible, exponential success of No Way Home (which, again, is one of those movies that Sony is as creatively responsible for as Marvel) is evidence that Sony's work on these movies is meaningful to people as well -- if it were all Disney, you wouldn't have seen calls to make ASM3 go viral on social media afterward. They launched a successful Venom franchise (no matter how you or I feel about it) and even managed to make Morbius into some kind of success even though it really seems like everyone thinks it looks like a joke.
WCat2000 wrote: April 6th, 2022, 8:49 pmSpeaking only on Afterlife it had a much, much lower budget. Overall it’s made $197m as far as we know. $200 if you count home sales which I do for the moment because of the unusual release, however it’s split. Either way you honestly think this is bad for a $75m budget?

You call it stagnant but there’s clearly interest for more movies and things. You’re equating other franchise’s numbers as GB falling behind.
It made $200m in theaters. I posted it in another thread somewhere on the board but I found some Japanese numbers, and the one Japanese number I found actually got it to exactly $200m. TheNumbers.com has a $39m figure for the 2016 movie on video, and I think it's safe to imagine that the new one did at least $30m (probably more, but let's be conservative). I imagine they would've preferred to hit $230m in theaters alone, but that's still 3x the budget.
Yeah I 100% think Ghostbusters has a ceiling on it. But I think that’s only the case because of mistakes Sony made. You release a 3rd movie in 2008 with the original cast and some new members and I think that movie is HUGE. They thought people loved the Ghostbusters concept and would follow that through to other iterations. I know we’ve disagreed about this but I still believe that in the public’s eye the OGB’s are this franchise. Or were.

To use a metaphor, imagine Ghostbusters 3 and this franchise as a Volcano. Think of the hype and excitement as pressure building building over years. The Volcano grows and bulges. When this baby pops…oh boy. The timing was perfect circa 2008. Nostalgia for 1980s via Gen X and Milenials was growing and growing . Even if the movies bad it’ll still make a mint. When GB3 turned into reboot via GB16 all that hype and excitement and energy just dissipated. When GB16 came out the volcano collapsed & was destroyed. A new volcano started to form in its place but it was much smaller & could hold far less than the previous Volcano.

Once Sony decided on a reboot & that reboot was received the way it was…there was no going back. Again, Indiana Jones is an example I’ll use. Indy 4 and GB3 are sort of similar. Both were franchises with sequels long in development, both had a movie last made in 1989 and both were considered to feature movies that are classics of the 1980s. So Indy 4, like GB3, was in development for a looong time. Now imagine if during the crux of that development just as things are looking up for the potienial of that 4th film to roll in front of cameras George announces “Ok. No Indy 4. Instead were are rebooting the franchise with a female Indiana Jones”. I think the reaction and reception would have been very similar to what happened with Ghostbusters.


Also. We’ve been thru this before but Marvel is the creative lead on the last 3 Spider-Man movies. This time Sony was instrumental in getting the original Spidey actors back but Marvel hires the writers, the director, the cast. Sony has the right to say no but the success of the newer Spider-Man movies is because Sony needed Marvel to fix things. Kevin Feige takes the exact same lead producer role in Spider-Man that he does in Marvel movies. This is what that renegotiation was about from a few years ago. Disney was tired of giving Sony Kevin Feige for no box office. Now they share the risk of production budget and Disney gets some of the box office. And Amy Pascal gets to feel good for doing pretty much nothing.

Look..Yes Venom is a success. But so what? Those movies are hot garbage and look at the Morbius director Daniel Espinosa’s interview with Mike Ryan. It made Sony look like idiots. Marvel takes such a creative lead on No Way Home that Sony didn’t even know how the multiverse was going to work…until the freaking movie came out lol. They didn’t know how Michael Keaton was going to fit in so they had to reshoot his scenes because what they shot during production would no longer make sense. Look at the reviews for the comic book properties they handle solo. Venom 1 and Venom 2 rotten, Morbius, rotten. Spider-Man No Way Home over 90% on RT.
Or look at their big franchises…Venom 1 rotten, Venom 2 rotten, Morbius Rotten, Men In black international rotten, Girl with the dragoon tattoo sequel rotten, Ghostbusters Afterlife within 4% of being rotten, Uncharted rotten. Jumanji is about the only thing they can release as a major franchise with decent reviews. So being that Spider-Man consistently ranks as one of the few franchises Sony makes with strong reviews and it’s the one movie franchise they don’t have creative lead on…how can you look at them as anything but the joke they are. It’s like they succeed by accident.

When a studio releases a bad movie that is financially successful, looking at that as if to say “See they must be doing something right” kind of misses the point. If those movies were successful for a movie that was shit, imagine the results if it had been quality. Uncharted is a big example. That movie could’ve been a modern Indiana Jones.
deadderek liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4968699
Troy wrote: April 7th, 2022, 4:37 pm I wonder how Tommy Lee Jones would react to hearing Volcano and franchise in the same sentence? :cool:
I'm still waiting on the late-'90s "Volcano: The Animated Series" where a cartoon version of Tommy Lee Jones, voiced by Ed Asner, joins an international team of volcano fighters jetting and boating around the globe.
mrmichaelt, Troy liked this
User avatar
By tylergfoster
#4968708
WCat2000 wrote: April 7th, 2022, 12:55 am So are the numbers that are available out of date or something?

I looked at that website too. thought GB’16 home sales were all-time. They have Afterlife’s at $5m (I could have sworn it was 3, guess I was looking at Blu Rays). Makes sense to me since it’s only been a few months.
Home video numbers are not reported as consistently as theatrical. I believe you can go back to TheNumbers and click on the home video stats to see the dates they're pulling the tallies from. As far as I know, that number is several years out of date, and I don't think there's any way to get better numbers.
RichardLess wrote: April 7th, 2022, 4:40 amYeah I 100% think Ghostbusters has a ceiling on it. But I think that’s only the case because of mistakes Sony made. You release a 3rd movie in 2008 with the original cast and some new members and I think that movie is HUGE.
I think the movie is bigger than the 2016 movie or Afterlife, but I'm guessing that one only does $250m-300m in 2008 money, and it probably comes with a price tag of $150m in 2008 money to go with it.

Anything after 1999, I think a good portion of the audience outside of the fans stops expecting it. They might be open to it should it get made, but that's not the same thing -- the moment the audience stops expecting it, then they have to be sold on it deserving to exist again. By the time you cross the threshold into the 2000s, you run into the additional factor of the cast being old. Murray is getting a second wind doing Wes Anderson movies, but Ramis is almost exclusively behind the camera, Aykroyd is no longer a movie star, and even Hudson is in a comparatively quieter period of his career. I just don't see the fan enthusiasm actually translating into a Star Wars-level blockbuster at that point. This is not Indiana Jones, where Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg remained bulletproof household names (even with Ford starring in plenty of stinkers!), and 2008 was their big return to this beloved thing.

The closest thing we might be able to agree on is that I'd have said there was at least a possibility it could be pretty big in the early 2010s, when the "legacy sequel" trend was taking off. So, I guess we're on the same page in thinking the reboot was a turning point.
RichardLess wrote: April 7th, 2022, 4:40 amAlso. We’ve been thru this before but Marvel is the creative lead on the last 3 Spider-Man movies. This time Sony was instrumental in getting the original Spidey actors back but Marvel hires the writers, the director, the cast.
I just can't stress enough that you have it backward here, and that Sony chooses the director, writer, and cast, and Marvel approves it. Pascal has more power on the Spider-Man movies than Feige, because the movies are still made at Sony and Feige works at Disney. You are correct to cite the negotiations, but they pretty strongly illustrate my point: it's public knowledge that Sony is the one who initially decided to walk away. If they're kicking back and doing nothing, that makes no sense. That's the move of a company that has confidence that they're doing most of the work already, and they think they deserve to keep the chunk they're sharing with someone else. You can call it arrogant if you want to, and I know you think the people running Sony are complete morons, but I would be more inclined to say the arrogance in question was that they were stupid to think the fans wouldn't revolt if Spider-Man suddenly exited the MCU than it was that they were successfully producing these movies mostly on their own. I have said this before, but I can't help but cite Spider-Verse again here, which is, in my opinion, still the best Spider-Man movie by a country mile and unquestionably done without Feige.

(Also, I haven't read Espinosa's interview, so I could be wrong, but the fact that Spider-Verse came out in 2018 suggests it was probably not the concept of the multi-verse they were confused about, but either what characters they had the legal right to use where, or just where events and characters were all meant to be in relation to each other, especially since Marvel themselves had to juggle and rewrite their whole timeline after Black Widow, Shang-Chi, and Eternals ended up having to come out after "WandaVision," "Falcon and the Winter Soldier," and "Loki.")
RichardLess wrote: April 7th, 2022, 4:40 amLook..Yes Venom is a success. But so what? Those movies are hot garbage...

When a studio releases a bad movie that is financially successful, looking at that as if to say “See they must be doing something right” kind of misses the point.
But that's actually my point. I'm not talking about the art here, I'm strictly talking about business. It's not like the two things are inherently connected anyway -- plenty of great movies bomb at the box office, and plenty of terrible movies are huge hits. You and I may look at this stuff as art, but the industry looks at it like a business, so, whether we like it or not, it doesn't miss the point to say "they must be doing something right" when something is successful even if it isn't good. That is the point.
robbritton liked this
User avatar
By WCat2000
#4968713
Don’t know why I never clicked the details tab on there. Haha. GB’16 home sales were last updated October 2016 and Afterlife in February. I’m not really into tracking numbers. I just look at them out of curiosity afterwards if I don’t see them in the news.

There could not have been a GB3 in the 2000s because of Bill Murray.

Unpopular opinion but I would have been fine if he just signed off and let everyone else do it. He obviously had no interest in doing more. Which is fine but he apparently had the power to veto it until whatever was worked out. I remember reading something like he had a limit to how many times he could refuse.

Harold Ramis didn’t seem very interested but he said he’d be willing to do another for Dan Aykroyd.
Clifton Sleigh liked this
By Davideverona
#4968716
Everyone had veto power until just after Harold's passing. In that period they sold their rights to Sony in exchange of Ghost Corps creation and an executive producer credit on every GB related project.

Now that Ivan passed away too, I don't know who's gonna take his producer credit.
User avatar
By WCat2000
#4968717
I know they all had rights but Bill Murray was the only one against it. It certainly wasn’t Dan. Ernie has always been into it and Harold was open to it.

Why not let everyone else go ahead and request he be written out? He didn’t like GB2, suggested “Last of the Ghostbusters” and the issue with Harold so he could have just walked away.
User avatar
By tylergfoster
#4968763
WCat2000 wrote: April 8th, 2022, 5:16 am I know they all had rights but Bill Murray was the only one against it. It certainly wasn’t Dan. Ernie has always been into it and Harold was open to it.

Why not let everyone else go ahead and request he be written out? He didn’t like GB2, suggested “Last of the Ghostbusters” and the issue with Harold so he could have just walked away.
The mistake was that Murray needed to vote at all. That's what those emails were about, the ones which so many people misunderstood in bad faith (despite the fact that they were sent before the dinner between Pascal and Feig that prompted Feig to come back with the idea to reboot), where Sony was considering legal action. He just wouldn't respond at all, and he absolutely had to in order for the movie to happen. If I was guessing, he honestly probably had no idea his word was necessary (which is not to absolve him, either, since his obliviousness could have cost people jobs).
robbritton liked this
User avatar
By WCat2000
#4968766
tylergfoster wrote: April 9th, 2022, 10:37 pm
WCat2000 wrote: April 8th, 2022, 5:16 am I know they all had rights but Bill Murray was the only one against it. It certainly wasn’t Dan. Ernie has always been into it and Harold was open to it.

Why not let everyone else go ahead and request he be written out? He didn’t like GB2, suggested “Last of the Ghostbusters” and the issue with Harold so he could have just walked away.
The mistake was that Murray needed to vote at all. That's what those emails were about, the ones which so many people misunderstood in bad faith (despite the fact that they were sent before the dinner between Pascal and Feig that prompted Feig to come back with the idea to reboot), where Sony was considering legal action. He just wouldn't respond at all, and he absolutely had to in order for the movie to happen. If I was guessing, he honestly probably had no idea his word was necessary (which is not to absolve him, either, since his obliviousness could have cost people jobs).
Oh. I looked up a few at the time. I think I read about the refusal limit in an article. Sure I preferred Bill Murray appear but it was not necessary imo since he didn’t want to.

I didn’t even believe the reboot at first because every time another movie was brought up it didn’t happen. Like I mentioned I always knew an actual part 3 would eventually happen I just learned to wait for official confirmation on anything.

I agree after a certain point a sequel needed to change focus. A lot of the talk was about “passing the torch” anyway. That always seemed to be the intent.
By Kalonthar
#4969441
The sequel announcement makes me wonder if this was just the plan all along. Not so much waiting to see if they felt it was a success to them or not, but just wanting to announce everything at CinemaCon.
By Clifton Sleigh
#4970777
Photon Guy wrote: March 24th, 2022, 8:25 pm Now this is just my opinion of course so anybody reading this feel free to agree or disagree with it, but if you ask me Afterlife succeeded where Disney failed with Star Wars.
Disney didn't 'fail' Star Wars in any shape or form other than people like you expecting the EU/Legends to be brought to screen. It made money and fans, and a lot of people were entertained; that's all that can be expected from a movie series, and it did that very well.

Afterlife made some money (and I liked it) but its chances at launching a sequel are in doubt; plus, a lot of women didn't like four adult women being replaced by a teenage female grandchild of Egon (Phoebe) and a sassy black teenage girl (Lucky).
User avatar
By timeware
#4970779
Disney didn't 'fail' Star Wars in any shape or form other than people like you expecting the EU/Legends to be brought to screen. It made money and fans, and a lot of people were entertained; that's all that can be expected from a movie series, and it did that very well.

Afterlife made some money (and I liked it) but its chances at launching a sequel are in doubt; plus, a lot of women didn't like four adult women being replaced by a teenage female grandchild of Egon (Phoebe) and a sassy black teenage girl (Lucky).
Honestly I beg to differ. Disney has been successful, and not so successful when it's come to Star Wars. Galaxy's Edge was a hit, the hotel was a blatant miss. Book of Fett was good, Mandalorian was good. So far I have mixed feelings about Obi Won with them depicting him as a chicken sh--. I didn't care for the whole Ray being the daughter of a certain Sith Lord story line and felt the writers could have done a better job with the Ray trilogy.

I was really looking forward to the development of Finn as a Jedi which they should have expanded on other then "Ray, I have to tell you something." The writers went on vacation or typed their scripts blind folded and just went "meh." It wouldn't surprise me if they threw Jar Jar Bink's in a closet with a type writer and said have at it.

As for Afterlife not getting a sequel, did you miss Ghostbusters Day where they announced not one but three possible sequels are being developed at the moment? The next film is being code named Fire House, an animated movie, and an animated series is coming to Netflix.

ATC's not being replaced. They may visit it again one day but it's not going to be anytime soon and probably not as a live action film. However with a 94% audience rating at Rotten Tomatoes should tell you that women did like the new female cast.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4970791
Clifton Sleigh wrote: June 16th, 2022, 12:14 am and a sassy black teenage girl (Lucky).
I'm not sure I'd describe Lucky as sassy... Sarcastic and deadpan at times, definitely. Even a little apathetic at first.
timeware wrote: June 16th, 2022, 1:24 am So far I have mixed feelings about Obi Won with them depicting him as a chicken sh--.
You mean, depicting him as having a realistic response to seeing the takeover of the galaxy by a dictatorial regime that he wasn't able to stop, who murdered all his friends and colleagues, as well as likely dealing with the emotional trauma from those deaths, and losing his brother-in-arms and friend?

Full disclosure: I haven't had the chance to watch the series yet, but I don't think it's fair to brand Obi-Wan a "chicken shit" for not being the same lightsaber-weilding soldier of justice he was in his youth given what he's facing and what he's experienced.
robbritton, timeware, deadderek and 1 others liked this

I found a cool tube at Ollies discount outlet, and[…]

Finally got my copy today - It's not the worst I'v[…]

I don't remember exactly, But I think I've had pr[…]

Someone ID'd them on Facebook first, there w[…]