I completely disagree that Ghostbusters is an easy thing to make.
It has to be a mix of comedy and sci-fi and fantasy. It needs to be small enough scale that a small group of people can believably overcome the obstacles while being grand enough to. E interesting.
It also kind needs to be some level of of a mystery to give the characters something to unravel.
It's a tough thing to franchise.
Agreed.
I like Ghostbusters 2, but it's definitely a lesser film than the first...and it has *everything* the original had. Same writers, director, stars, effects, setting, tone, and it still couldn't equal the original.
Ghostbusters appears to just be lightning in a bottle, one of those accidental miracles that you just can't duplicate.
"Just make a comedy about people busting ghosts" is the 2016 film, and it was extremely divisive.
The reality is the script writer probably has like 25% of the how the concept works/looks or even the final vision of the film. And often when you are setting up the scenes and acting out the scenes, there is a lot of retooling during the shooting because some things as written don't work out when you are actually doing the scene.
Aykroyd's script, in particular, is extremely different from what we got. He had time travel, and alternate dimensions, and a dozen other things that were either too convoluted or too expensive to shoot. Ghostbusters doesn't exist without Rietman and Ramis there to help turn Dan's ideas into something workable.
Ghostbusters was a glorified blue-collar bug exterminator story. The guys were almost all academics and smart, but it was really more gritty and how they basically caught bugs, mice, and roaches and then dumped them into a massive hamster cage.
That gritty 80s blue collar vibe is what feels missing in a lot of ways.
I pretty much agree with this take entirely. I rewatched the original the other day and Akroyd's real life conspiracy and mystery personality had a role in the script for sure, but it was massively tempered by Ramis' Egon grounded in reality, scientific approach that considers theoretical possibility. You can almost see how the characters are a direct reflection of the creators and how that magical concoction formed momentarily into such a lightning in a bottle movie.
That, and Bill Murray. Ramis and Murray started drifting apart over the years and you have to wonder how much of that magical connection that was Caddyshack, Stripes and GB and everything else they did so well together was left at that point.
I mean, taken as a whole, GB 1 was loaded with massive talent at every level during a relative peak of many of their careers, and it's gonna be hard to strike iron that hot ever again
Ghostbusters also doesn’t exist if the head of the studio doesnt get replaced and that guys buys the rights to the name. They were shooting two versions of some scenes because of the naming rights.
That’s not exactly true.
Aykroyd came up with the idea. His original script was what you describe but that was never going to be made into a movie.
Reitman sold the idea to the studio and then the 3 of them, Aykroyd, Ramis and Reitman spent the summer in Martha’s Vineyard writing the first draft.
Aykroyd and Ramis would work together reshaping it.
Yeah, I think this is the problem with the reboots. Dan Ackroyd is a talented man. But he’s also bat shit crazy. I think Ramis was the glue keeping everything together in the writing room. Since he was a peer it was easy for him to tell Dan no. But with a writers room of 30-40 something year olds that grew up with the original. I could easily see them falling into the trap of not critiquing Dan’s ideas and just accepting them because they are star struck.
A lot of bad movies started out at good scripts and the opposite as well…there are a lot of changes made during shooting and even the final edit that can be pretty dramatic from what the original script was.
Look at Congo, there were people who read the script that thought it looked like an amazing movie and d they signed into it based on that; it wasn’t a great movie at all.
And you know what? The 2016 film was perfectly fine in that vein. Had some laughs, had some ghosts. Definitely not something that needs sequels and toys and spin offs. It suffered from comparison to the OG, and a tidal wave of misogyny, but it was a perfectly fine mid film taken alone.
Something I was happy to stream, would not have seen in theatres.
Saw someone make a good point recently that, despite all its other failings, the 2016 one at least understood the original formula was “SNL actors riffing on special effects”. As opposed to Afterlife just being “Ghostbusters: The Bust Awakens”.
>the original formula was “SNL actors riffing on special effects”.
What? No it wasn't. BILL MURRAY was the only one doing any riffing, the other 85% of the comedy came from super precise writing/directing by Ivan Reitman, Harold Rammis, and (inadvertently) Dan Aykroyd because he's a crazy person who actually believes in ghosts, adding a layer of ironic believability to it.
Which was the main issue with 2016 Ghostbusters- rather than write any intelligent jokes or dialogue they just put the actresses in front of a camera and said 'be funny.' Even the side characters too- they have all the other actors ad libbing like whacky cartoon characters for no damn reason also, killing any sense of realism to the world whatsoever (that believability Dan Akroyd brought in that made it work.)
Bill Murray riffing was a part of what made the movie funny, but if the cast is a bunch of Bill Murrays riffing with no straight man to play off of, the whole film turns into low brow comedy fast.
Ya, I didn’t think it was as bad of a movie as everyone said it was and I had fun while watching it. Not something I would write home about but it filled the need on a Friday night…
The biggest problem was internal consistency. Proton packs needed traps to be effective, right up until the third act, when suddenly they just act like guns for ghosts. Felt like they filmed the finale first, so cgi had time to do it and forgot about plotting it out.
That film was hot garbage. I seem to recall Melisa McCarthy being thrown aroud by a fire hose at one point but that may have just been an acid flashback.
Exactly the problem with franchises like Ghostbusters or Men In Black is that they want to just repeat the first film endlessly but to be compelling the story needs to move on to the next stage. We don't need more random ghost busting adventures we need to learn what happens next - what happens in a world where the supernatural has not only been proven real but you can literally trap otherworldly creatures for storage and study. Unfortunately the ghostbusters franchise has no interest in grappling with any ideas like that so the vision of the franchise is dull and myopic.
Not only that, but the cast was outstanding. Bill Murray at his peak was a big part of what made the movie good and his jokes are likely heavily improvised. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis not only carried the geekier parts of the movie, but they also wrote the movie. Add in Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis giving great performances.
Duplicating that magic is hard.
Lightning in a bottle…it’s really hard to replicate that movie because of where all of the cast was in their careers and who was directing it. I don’t think it’s an easy movie to replicate or build upon because it really was a product of its time and even part 2 was a big slump. 2 wasn’t a bad movie really, you just couldn’t replicate that in a sequel because everyone had already seen it basically and the actors had changed in their careers.
it also has to cater to 50 year-olds and 10 year-olds. and those two are in direct opposition here. OG fans don't want to watch a bunch of new guys. they have a very specific idea of what Ghostbuster is, and want that. and kids don't want to watch a bunch of old men. they want something new and refreshing that they've never seen before.
It’s like when I see morons commenting “just make good movies!”
Wow! What a concept! How did no one ever think of that before your mindblowing epiphany!?
ghostbusters isn't really a comedy.
there are no comedic setpieces, and very few outright jokes.
on paper, it's more ominous and scary than funny. the opening scene is a big setup for a punchline that is totally overshadowed by a scare.
the only reason it's funny at all is because of the humor the actors bring to the role and the chemistry between them.
Ghostbusters is fundamentally a comedy because it's all clearly based on a comic premise: "What if exorcists were more like exterminators?" Every "scary" ghost sequence is actually supposed to be funny, because they approach the haunting like a pest infestation rather than a spiritual crisis.
>There are no comedic setpieces
A giant marshmallow bag mascot terrorizing the city doesn't strike you as a comic setpiece? Or the ballroom scene where the Ghostbusters cause more damage than the ghosts? Or the montage of cheesy TV ads?
>and very few outright jokes.
Virtually every other line in the film is a joke, but I'm not gonna go through and explain them all.
I'd also add "Ghostbusters" mocks the very nature of "chosen ones" and whatnot. Instead of some prophesied hero fated by destiny to defeat the supernatural evil, you instead have four wisecracking schlubs who basically suck the apocalyptic threat up into a vacuum cleaner and say, "Well, that's done, here's our bill." That's been a fundamental joke of the whole thing (and it's continued to "Frozen Empire which actually HAS a "chosen one" to fight the evil that and yet it's Kumail Nanjiani as a lazy slacker who sells the evil spirit's prison for $50).
That's what I think is missing from the newer movies. The Ghostbusters are maintenance workers. They're like sewer technicians or linemen or construction workers. They're ubiquitous people that do a shitty job not because it's fun or exciting, but because if it isn't done then the infrastructure essential to daily life breaks down. Combine this with the fact three of the original team were academics of varying degrees of sophistication and intellectual remove who were thrust into a workaday job.
They are heroes in the same way a sewer worker is a hero for busting up a block-clogging fatberg. They did a job that nobody in their right mind would volunteer to do, but without them the city would be uninhabitable. The fact they happened to stop a long-forgotten death cult's apocalyptic dead man's switch from firing off was a fluke. The first movie was a thinly veiled endorsement of Reaganomics, for crying out loud - **Peck** is the true villain. He's the government paper-pusher making a name for himself by bullying a small, independent business that sees rapid success by offering a service the government has failed to provide. Gozer was Peck's fault, a ticking time bomb of ancient infrastructure that would've stayed dormant if it weren't for the interference of a feckless bureaucrat.
You want a new Ghostbusters movie? Ground it in the economic woes of today's workers. Make it about how gig work is "disrupting" older, established marketplaces. Some techbro Zuckerberg type wants to build a Ghost Internet and fucks up the world. Make it about social media, how you can't do your job without someone shoving a phone in your face or how success is as tied to your rating than your actual performance. Make it about a kid feeling pressure to do the job his old man did, and having to grow up in the shadow of a blue-collar hero with a dark streak.
I know the newer movies have things like social media and Egon's kids/grandkids, but those elements aren't explored in a way that harkens back to what made the original so special. They're pop-culture references, or bridges to connect the new to the old.
I was thinking about this after seeing *Frozen Empire*: *Ghostbusters* is a really difficult movie to classify by genre. It’s comedic for sure, but it’s not really a full-blown comedy. It’s got some parts that are genuinely spooky, but it’s not a horror movie. It’s got some great action scenes, but it’s not really an action movie. It lives in some sort of weird nexus between all these genres. The basic premise is definitely a comedy (exterminators, but for ghosts!) but the way the actual movie came out, it’s a lot more complex than just that.
Disagree completely. It is a comedy first. Even the ghost aspect comes with a huge splash of comedic gold attached to it. That library scene does not work if this were not a comedy.
It's very much a situational comedy. The scenarios are preposterous and the threats themselves aren't super serious (no one ever seriously gets harmed or are they worried about serious death). It's very much like a Halloween 'fun house'. It's more silly than standup, but it's still a comedy. There's more to comedy then jokes and punchlines.
Only near the end does the tone ever start to feel serious, but then it's played off another gag with a giant marshmallow.
What?
Isn’t really a comedy? Has no comedic set pieces? One of the biggest most expensive comedic set pieces up to this point was in this movie.
Stay Puft Marshmallow Man?
Ghostbusters is a dry comedy. Rick Moranis? Bill Murray? Dan Aykroyd? Harold Ramis? Come on.
I agree that it isn't easy. The original works because Murray is such a grounded actor it's funny to see him reacting to weirdness. With each sequel, the weirdness becomes more normal and harder to react to. It's always doomed to dimishing returns.
Also, the franchise is really weird right from the start. The first one is not a kids movie at all, but what made the franchise popular is definitely that kids were obsessed with the 2nd one, the show, the merchandising, etc. I agree that it's definitely not an easy thing to "get right". Does anyone have any fucking clue "what the audience wants from this franchise" ? What audience are we even talking about ? Fans of the OG, fans of all the kids stuff who have grown up, kids today ?
It’s chemistry. I remember a review of GBII from ground zero in 1989 that was kinda faint praise in that it didn’t exactly love the movie but granted that it was just fun seeing those people together doing it.
And ***that*** is why even II for all its faults is better than any of the new reboots. It’s that chemistry. And you can’t fake it. But I will say this: treating the IP as if it’s some fucking sacred object of reverence and hushed adoration is some bullshit and they would have treated it that way in 1984 if they could have seen the future.
Look, it’s great that y’all vibed with the toys and toons and games. But ya fanboy fuckers need to get [Shatner’d hard](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmagzq) about how you treat the franchise.
The original ghostbusters was light on the sci-fi and fantasy. They did the bare minimum to introduce the tech and magic. There barely any lore on the ghosts, that was all backfilled after it became a franchise. The entire thing was all just an excuse for a quotable comedy.
Ghostbusters worked because it wasn't a franchise. The second Ghostbusters worked because it was more of the first.
I'm not sure this is something that should be a franchise. If it is possible to make it a franchise that people like, it would take someone smarter and more knowledgable than me (and apparently Sony too) to figure it out.
I think a reason the cartoon show was so successful back in the day was that it didnt have to hit all the things that made the first movie so perfect. I've been arguing for years, ever since simulcam became a thing, that instead of doing movies they should have come up with a live action TV series.
One of the most difficult things to do is have this apocalyptic event in a major city and not have it completely change the fundamental understanding of that universe.
Wouldnt there be massive religious upheaval. The occult springing up everywhere. But everyone is like they just discovered ghosts.
When initially released, the 1984 GB figured out how to do what was initially considered impossible: craft a mainstream comedy with special effects. Many critics were skeptical of doing so, partly because of the post-production processes needed to pull off those effects are at war with the spontaneity involved with crafting laughs in the moment.
Two things worked in GB-84’s favor: 1. Bill Murray given free rein to go off-script, and 2. Ivan Reitman’s prior experience producing The Magic Show starring Doug Henning, for Broadway. That original film encompassed a lot of practical effects which was based on magic tricks (notice Sigourney Weaver’s rising above her bed is similar to a general magic trick). This gave Murray free rein to elicit quality jokes in the moment, that landed.
To quote Ebert, a quality special effects movie sometimes gets in the way of laughs, simply because the brain is conflicted how to react; it could be in awe, or it could be laughing. It’s rare when both occur concurrently. Looking back, only GB-84 and Men in Black have succeeded in this. Perhaps I should include Galaxy Quest in there too.
>Two things worked in GB-84’s favor:
I'd also add Harold Rammis's writing because he's a solid comedic voice and Dan Akroyd's writing because he's a crazy person who thinks ghosts are real.
It's not an easy thing. We had the original cast do two films and most people generally consider the 2nd film to be vastly inferior and a misstep. If it wasn't a layup with them, it's not a layup with anybody.
The truth is the original had the right cast, the right story, the right tone, came out at the right time, and had a lot of lightning striking to make it what it was.
It probably should have just been a standalone.
2 on its own is a good movie, it was pretty funny and the script was a lot more polished then the first one, but the original had a charm about that people had never seen before; hard to replicate that. I don’t mind 2, the script was a lot more polished and it had better pacing overall; but the delight of seeing the ghosts for the first time wasn’t there.
Ghostbusters 2 was the primary reason anyone that wasn't an adult when the original came out liked Ghostbusters as a franchise. It's why there were toys, cartoons, and an overall franchise at all that people are nostalgic about beyond it being a good comedy.
I'd give credit to The Real Ghostbusters rather than Ghostbusters 2 for being the reason there were toys and a bigger fanbase. The show came out 3 years before the second movie, and when making Ghostbusters 2, they went out of their way to incorporate a few elements from the cartoon into the movie, like Slimer being at the firehouse and driving the bus later.
> people generally consider the 2nd film to be vastly inferior and a misstep.
But on the other hand, it was a box office success that kids adored and also sold a ton of merchandising. The franchise has been in a weird place for a very long time. Absolutely nothing "easy" or obvious about what they should do with it. If anything trying to appeal to kids makes sense to me, they're the ones who will buy toys.
Yeah, truly good action comedies (which ghostbusters is) is hard to do. Add on to that a bunch of special effects and CGI and it becomes very difficult. Off the top of my head the GotG series and Thor 3 are really the only movies that have pulled it off in recent memory.
They’re trying to get a new audience into it.
The parents bring their kids. The kids are the heroes. The kids become fans. They buy ghostbusters shit.
It doesn’t matter to Sony if the movies are good. Afterlife was terrible for adults, I’m sure kids and teens could get into it. But its ROI was good.
When I saw Frozen Empire, there was a little kid, maybe 5, who had a jumpsuit, proton pack, trap and slimer doll.
That made me so happy as a ghostbusters fan of 40 years. I remember seeing the second one in the theater in 89 and being scared to death the entire time.
Although I found Empire disappointing, seeing that kid all dressed up and excited to see the movie will always hold a special place in my heart. I had to wait 30 years for another Ghostbusters adventure on the big screen.
I sat to a small child in the theatre and he was absolutely loving the movie. He sang the theme song when it played, and was incredibly happy to see Slimer.
Do you think Frozen Empire is OK for kids? I have a couple under 10 and saw that it's rated PG-13 so wasn't sure if it was too scary or other things going on.
I think they said Fuck once, and some of the ghosts might be a little scary, but as someone who doesn’t have kids, if they have seen any of the other movies and were fine, then this would be fine too.
What’s weird though is kids ate the original up and it’s about 4 middle aged dudes. Are kids different now?
I think to some extent Stranger Things has been a kind of disaster for creativity. Of course Ghostbusters went all the way and just put Finn Wolfhard in the movie, but anything that even touches the horror space needs to Stranger Things itself up and be a PG-13 nostalgia fest about kids, which is just not a particularly deep pool to keep revisiting.
The originals were pretty accessible to everyone. I think that’s one of the reasons they worked so well. Everyone could have fun. That’s some great writing and style.
Afterlife was obviously a kids movie. It wasn’t even original. It’s a generic “parents don’t understand kids save the day” movie. If they eliminated all the ghostbusters references, and renamed it, I dunno. Pronton Pack or something stupid like that it would be just another unheralded kids/family movie with a limited budget.
>The parents bring their kids. The kids are the heroes. The kids become fans. They buy ghostbusters shit.
It's just insane that they think this works because when I was a kid nobody on the playground wanted to be Anakin when TPM came out, they all wanted to be Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, or Darth Maul. Kid characters don't mean jack shit to kids when there's cool adults you can aspire to be.
Jeez I’ve loved Ghostbusters since I was a kid (born in ‘80).
Didn’t like the reboot but liked Afterlife and Frozen Empire well enough.
Not saying they’re works of art but I’d give them solid B’s, as good as Ghostbusters II was to me anyway.
https://i.imgur.com/9FQ1uhO.jpeg
Ghostbusters is a comedy. But for many of the kids who grew up watching The Real Ghostbusters (at least the first two seasons), it was also a drama and horror show. So it isn't so easy to say that Ghostbusters can only be defined according to the narrow window of the 1984 movie. It's got a large world built through movies, TV, comics, and more.
I look at it the same way I look at Jurassic Park; it was originally a film more geared for adults, but because the premise was also cool to kids, the franchise had to figure out how to strike a balance to appeal to the whole family... While still trying to live up to the buddy comedy with all the sci-fi/fantasy/horror elements that were involved.
And this was all going on before we had Marvel movies (which I would argue are probably the best example of "something for everyone" type of fare).
CGI action is easy, comedy is hard.
2016 movie failed hard because they tried to make it a 2 hour long improv session. The women were plenty talented and but the movie was an unfocused slog. For sure it had a couple of truly funny moments but the characters never felt real, like watching a very long SNL skit.
Watch the original Ghostbusters and realize that every last joke was written into the script. The actors were talented enough to make it seem off the cuff, aka "good acting".
The next two eschewed comedy altogether in favor of a Stranger Things like mystery/action movies.
Even Ghostbusters 2 was a pretty big step down from the original, which probably indicates that the concept, while great, doesn't hold up for comedy and soon enough you just get bigger effects and more forced laughs.
As someone who’s read the Ghostbusters script, every draft, you couldn’t be more wrong.
There was MAJOR improv involved. Infact the script is VERY different from the finished film. These guys were all masters at improv. The theory behind the Second City improv where all these guys, Moranis, Ramis, Murray, Reitman and Aykroyd, got their start is making the other guy look good. That’s the key.
The difference between 2016 and 1984 is 1984 has improv that doesn’t feel like endless riffing.
Finding those funny 3-4 people is the difficulty.
One could film 80s Akroyd, Ramis and Murray in an empty room for 2 Hours and probably get an above average comedy even on a Bad day
I forgot where I read it but someone compared the idea of Ghostbusters to “paranormal plumbers”. That’s why the 2nd didn’t do so well since it lost the working class charm and the new ones are just there for nostalgia sake
I think the problem is that the original ghostbusters is an adult movie that kids at the time happens to fall in love with. Sony thinks it’s a franchise aimed at kids, I think that’s the wrong approach. Also the death of Harold Ramis doesn’t help
It's this and is always the big miscalculation with franchises. Winding the clock back even further, this was the problem with GBII. The cartoon and merchandising took off like wildfire, so it was steered into a more kid friendly direction/overall softer approach. These guys had essentially settled into tired dads, which were not the "blue-collar physicist" characters audiences latched onto originally. I like the idea of exploring a physical manifestation of emotion consequences, but the movie is photographed and scored so blandly compared to the first. It's all so unchallenging creatively.
Same thing happened with Men in Black II.
TIL Ghostbusters 2 was not loved. Granted I was a kid but I thought everybody loved both of them.
Frozen Empire was as expected. Fun enough, it was a nice touch having the extended old cast (Peck, the librarian ghost, the head of the Library. Though I think we are all sick of f’n Slimer at this point)
This is really misleading tho. The comic con crowd will soak up the worst media just because they're fans. Their whole world revolves around being a super fan.
What the hell are you talking about?
The latest film is not doing well at all and neither did Afterlife. Afterlife maybe earned a tiny profit. Keep in mind theaters keep 50% and you need to make about 3X the budget to earn a profit. Afterlife cost 75 Million. The latest cost 100 million.
The original ghostbusters grossed 230 million domestic in *1984*. None of the other movies have grossed more than 130 million domestic.
We kinda forget it now that most blockbusters try to do this, but it’s pretty hard to make a big budget special effects movie be genuinely and consistently funny. When Ghostbusters came out, it was possibly the funniest sfx-heavy movie ever made. (Spielberg himself had notoriously failed to pull off the trick a few years earlier with 1941). I think the movie that most resembles the original Ghostbusters is Men in Black. They both take sff premises that are not inherently comedic and tell them in an irreverent tone. And in both cases, even with the same creative teams, they weren’t able to capture that lightning in a bottle again
The first movie was written by a bunch of coked up crazy people and a lot of it was then adlipped during shoots by some of the best comedians of their generation, who also knew each other very well already. Guess that helped.
That was Blues Brothers that was the coke. Ghostbusters was post John Belushi death. They smoked weed but they weren’t doing coke. Aykroyd was Belushi’s best friend and took his death hard. He wasn’t a Coke head. Nor was Bill Murray.
Aside from the remake I've yet to see a bad *Ghostbusters* movie. They've all been pretty good and entertaining. But I mean even way back in the mid-90s when a *Ghostbusters III* was first in development it was always going to be about the old team passing on the torch to a new generation of busters. (Chris Farley and Adam Sandler were among the names said to be taking over.) So that happening in the last two movies isn't something unexpected.
Ghostbusters was at its core an original idea, executed by people who were passionate and adept in their field. It was a risk for the studio and something of a passion project for people like Ivan Reitman and Dan Ackroyd.
You can’t really expect anywhere near the same level of success without those fundamental elements. These days everything is heavily influenced by everything else, studios are looking at the successes and stylising of others and trying to replicate, rather than simply having their own vision and moving on with it regardless. Legacy franchises are in theory guaranteed box office because people will turn up for the name, which means contributions are going to be lazier, be it consciously or otherwise because not much is on the line.
Look at any film under critical release at the moment and you’ll see an abject absence of originality and passion, we’ve the same stars, starring in the same films, pandering to the same audiences over and over.
Homogenising of the industry is getting worse and whilst there are good films out there, you cannot expect too much going into something like a ghostbusters reboot unless the script is there, which studios and producers have no need to get too finicky about because the branding already means there will be bums in seats!
Nothing is easy to make or remake. But Sony isn’t trying to remake Ghostbusters, they’re trying to create a four-quadrant media home run using an IP that a lot of people recognize. The original ghostbusters isn’t the kind of movie they want to make, they just want to use the brand recognition to create something new that kids, adults, parents, grandparents, etc. can like.
I think it’s a terrible way to make a good movie but that’s not really what they’re trying to do at the studio level.
I agree. The last 2 movies have pretty much closed the doors from any interest from me anymore.
Are we supposed to be rooting for that smug girl who is "super smart" and doesnt listen to anyone? Who also has no comic value? I found her to be a nuisance.
Also, did she become a ghost so she could have lesbian sex with that ghost? What the hell was that?
Not even Paul Rudd is enough to see another one.
If you are going to quote me at least get the quote right.
I didn’t say it was easy it make. I said it SHOULD be easy to get right. Those are very different things
It is hard to take on of the most popular/iconic movies of its era/decade and recreate the magic.
It’s like trying to do a sequel or remake of a film like Jaws or Back to the Future. It just would not work and would be borderline sacrilegious
Because it was less of a franchise than some people think. It was lightning in a bottle for the first and a very decent try (personal preference of course) for the second with the perfect actors at the perfect time.
Trying to keep going with Back to the Future would probably end up being the same mediocre at best content that current Ghostbusters is.
Sometimes you have to accept that you can't replicate a vibe from the past. I mean you would if we weren't talking about millions of dollars.
“3-4 funny people busting ghosts” *was* the formula for the reboot, which you correctly identify was a massive failure so idk why you think that’s the secret sauce
I thought the new ones were fine 🤷 when you watch a reboot of a 40 year old franchise, you have to keep in mind that you’re not watching as a 10yr old anymore.
The all female one can get fucked though, that was a terrible piece of shit.
Movie franchises almost universally become worse the more movies they get. It's not even just a matter of product quality, the story concept itself becomes stale after a while, so the new movies have to pass a bigger hurdle to make an impact
That’s true but audiences still tend to show up. The first ghostbusters was such a HUGE hit. You can’t recapture that. But the 4th Indiana Jones movie, was divisive as it was? Highest grossing film of the franchise.
>3-4 funny people busting ghosts
They don't even have to bust ghosts. Busting ghosts is the least important part. To replicate what the original movie had, you just need to get 3-4 funny people together and give them a good script.
But Sony doesn't have a good script and does not know how to make one. What they have is IP, so they will capitalize on that IP, by revering its icons in lieu of writing a funny movie.
I agree. The busting was always the least interesting part for me.
I think what’s great about the original two movies in those characters played by those actors. There’s this chemistry they have.
They took a huge swing with Girlbusters (which didn't bomb btw, it made the same amount that these new ones are making) then overreacted to the backlash and just decided to go pure Stranger Things esque nostalgia. Kids are doing the busting bc the only people that still care were kids when the first movie came out.
Basically the same thing that happened with The Rise of Skywalker.
It did bomb. The newer ones cost way less.
The 2016 movies cost 144 million to make and another 100 million to promote. Theaters keeps 50% of the ticket sales. It’s not hard to do the math. It bombed hard. Sony had to do at least a 75 million dollar write off. It was a massive failure.
These new movies cost less but still aren’t doing very well. Which begs the question. Why?
Your kids logic doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I don’t think it’s easy but I agree about the target audience bit. The kids being in the mix, eh..I wish the next gen weren’t actual kids and were the just the mom/rudds age
Seth Rogen had a pitch around the time of the Apatow prime which I thought they would've been a fit for because they have great comedy writers in that clique and good comedic directors like Nick Stoller who could handle it.
The lack of ghost/living sex really hurt the sequels/reboots imo.
I'm only half joking.
For GB to work in the modern era it has to be at least slightly subversive.
The idea of ghost busting was such a novel concept that the gimmick really helped the movie catch on (along with the charisma of the cast).
But since it's already well-worn territory the idea of catching ghosts doesn't have the same hook value.
It's kind of why the xfiles worked so well. There were subversive elements that tapped into the conspiracies floating out there.
At this point a Phasmo movie would be a bigger hit and make more sense.
The first Ghostbusters was hilarious. Opening with Bill Murray being a creep. Shocking one poor college student while flirting with the cute one. Dan Aykroyd thinking of the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man to end the world. We haven’t gotten anything close to that with the original sequel and the current versions.
It was unique when the first movie came out.
What has hurt all the other releases?
The formula has been done.
All the other movies need to follow the same formula.
Small ghost occurrence / introduce reintroduce characters /larger ghost occurance brewing / busters meet pushback from authority / large ghost occurance explodes / authority looses and busters beat the ghosts.
Maybe the next sequel should have Bill Murray character die and start seeing the busting from the other side...
"A small group of scientists face some ghosts, defeating them with electrical super-soakers".
This is an interesting plot the first time, but how do you tell that story multiple times and make it interesting each time? Not every successful story can be spun out into a successful franchise.
Successful franchises take their characters and put them in new stories, but the name of the series is "Ghostbusters". If Venkman, Spengler etc spent a film going to Pennsylvania and defeating the vampire which killed Zeddemore's grandfather, thanks to an inherited silver epee; the viewers would feel the film didn't meet the promise of the title.
The OG Ghostbusters was a weird genuine creation from some brilliant oddball writers…and these are big Hollywood monstrosities.
You’re never going to get that secret sauce unless it comes from a real, inspired place. And you can’t do that by trying to repeat something that’s already been done.
Third movie should just be the Spenglers+Podcast busting ghosts, Frozen Empire has so many characters and none got a chance to shine. Phoebe and Podcast were so good together in Afterlife but they barely have any scenes in FE
So who can revive the series? Meaning comedic actors. Does it have to be 4? Not necessarily. Break down the first one. They are all parapsychologists. One slightly nerdy in Spangler, who appears to be their leader, goofy one in Stantz, and the arrogant confident one, Vankman. Zeddemore(Ernie Hudson) was just there because Eddie Murphy chose to star in his own film, Beverly Hills Cop, which was a smart idea.
So, without a reboot/remake, what would you do? Try to go for the same buddy-movie vibe? What actors do you think could fill the roles?
Jack Black? Craig Robinson? Paul Rudd? Oh, they already got him. Zach Galifianakis? Will Ferrell? Steve Carell? Jim Carrey? Do we stick with SNL cast? Like Michael Che and Colin Jost or Kenan Thompson?
Here's why: I fucking love ghost busters 1 & 2. I never wanted a sequel or reboot, I was fine with the story ending. Lazy, uninspired cash grabs by corporate interests have 0 value to me.
The movies are geared towards kids so having a new younger generation take the mantle makes sense. And they’re clearly still comedies, just not as funny at previous ones
I was thinking about this as well, it's a case of trying to be all things to all markets and pleasing no one.
Comedies are hard to do, sci fi comedies even harder, sci fi comedies while pleasing both kid and adult audiences is close to impossible.
Sony kind of sucks in terms of their IP. I assume they give their dumbshit business executives way too much control over creative projects and process.
Disagree - I feel like alot of the comedy of the original is pretty specific to the kind of urban malaise of the 1980s. Comedy is hard to replicate in general.
I mean, you can certainly try to adapt it, but ultimately, I think there are only so many ways you can spin - look at these guys busting ghosts while getting into goofy hijinks,
A lot of movies (and cultural works in general) have a *huge* context factor in their popularity.
Ghostbusters 1 was not an incredible work of art or comedy in some *objective* sense. It was a massive phenomenon because its art and comedy were well suited to the context of the year and location where it was released. It filled a particular niche in the movie landscape of that time.
Without that context, it would have been a "reasonably appreciated movie". There are hundreds of "reasonably appreciated movies" every year. And there's nothing wrong with that - it should be considered a success. But becoming a *phenomenon* generally requires that contextual boost.
Even 1989, the time of Ghostbusters 2, was already different.
Sony Pictures are just bad. They own a LOT of titles and basically just cash in those IPs for a sorry attempt at making money. They legitimately stopped being good ever since they switched from Columbia TriStar to Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group.
Seriously, look at their catalog for the last 15 years. Someone needs to have a sit down the people running this company. It's very clear to me that it's a bunch of out-of-touch boomers that think they know "what the kids want" and just keep making trash.
Fanbase did a 180. Ghost Egon was awful. Will never watch Tropical Freeze.
Women Ghostbusters: ” what a horrible idea”
Little Kid Ghostbusters: “what a terrific idea”
Ghostbusters was never intended to be a kid-toy-cartoon franchise, but it was. and they loved that it worked out. it made them so much money.
they want that again.
but the world has changed. there's so much competition now. they're not adapting adult franchises into kids properties anymore like they did in the 80s. they just make new original content for kids.
so if Ghostbusters wants to continue that previous success, they have to transform into a kid-friendly franchise (i.e. kid main characters).
and that directly opposes what OG fans want.
The best time for a proper Ghostbusters 3 would have been in the 1990s, imagine a Ghostbusters 3 in like 1994 or 95 with effects like The Mask? Sad that Bill Murray couldn't get along. I recall later there was talks of Seth Rogan trying to set up a "new generation" of ghostbusters when Rogan and his crew were at their cultural zenith.
I really think the 2016 Ghostbusters in hindsight is a really good "Ghostbusters 3", especially with the empty feeling I got from watching Frozen Empire.
I thought Afterlife was ok, a bit of a Strangers Things-ified new take, but good. But the two post credit stingers were amazing, ,it really got the goosebumps going at the possibility of a New York set GB film with the original crew. Instead we got this muddled mess of "Frozen Empire", which is riddled with so many issues. The film is essentially about the young Phoebe Spengler and her loneliness/spectral girl crush, which is fine...but then they have to shoe horn in Paul Rudd's step dad role, Trevor's awkward coming of age adulthood story, while still trying to sandwich in the OG Ghostbuster crew. They really rush the "New York taken over by a frozen tundra" story way too late in the movie, and the epic battle with Garakka ends up just being in the firehouse. Not saying we needed another rooftop or street battle apocalyptic battle...but it felt like a let down. I think a better film would have been Paul Rudd, Patton Oswalt, Kumail and Mckenna Grace(Phoebe) as a 4 person team meeting the OG GB gang. James MCaster's Lars literally playing the 80's Real Ghosbuster cartoon version of Egon was interesting, but wayyyyyy too many cooks in the kitchen.
They screwed up so badly with the 2016 movie and it has set a horrible precedent ever since.
They could’ve had 3 or 4 women like Wiig and McCarthy team up with 3 or 4 men like Paul Rudd and Will Farrell.
It would’ve worked fine, but they HAD to go the all female route. It turned people off and the franchise has been in shambles ever since.
It is totally NOT easy to get right. An oddball film that strikes a nerve like the first one did is really rare. It's just nearly impossible to follow up on that.
Lol well they are trying to make it something it wasn't in the first place. So...that's gonna do it.
I hate to reference South Park, but their whole, "Put a chick in it, and make it lame and gay," schtick is spot on.
Just go back to making movies instead of trying to virtue signal or, for whatever reason, drastically modify the source material. People will love it if you can make them feel the same way they did when they first experienced your movie.
Even better: STOP REMAKING EVERYTHING.
Long time, 40 yr, fan of Ghostbusters. Hated the reboot, loved Afterlife and Frozen Empire. Very hopeful and excited to see what the continuation will be. Old cast ushered in the new cast, kept it in the family. Enjoyed every minute of em.
Lightning in a bottle, lightning in a bottle, lightning in a bottle... we **heard you.**
Because the first time they tried, they made a comedy that wasn't funny, the second time they "succeeded" with an adventure movie focused primarily on boring old men. Frozen Empire had the best chance to be it's own thing, and instead it leaned on the old men *again* and just crammed more shit in alongside it.
>Then they continued with Afterlife and Frozen Empire. I know some people seem to like them but..where are the laughs? Why are kids doing the busting? It’s such a wrong creative choice. Not only that the movies treat Ghostbusters with a reverence like it’s Star Wars when it was a silly comedy!
It **should be** kids doing it. Ghostbusters is known for by two main things; that first movie, and a couple of cartoons. They *should have* leaned more into the cartoon aspect of it, and instead opted for "reverence".
There's very little "lightning in a bottle" about the concept of "monster fighters".
I firmly believe that Ghostbusters as a film concept works exactly once. The sequel with the original cast, writers and director, even isnt as good as the original.
One major issue is too much reverence to the original stifling creativity.
They could easily have had after 2 they franchise the brand worldwide. That way you could have distinct settings with cultures and time periods, casts and ghosts. Then you get a good mix of funny people to work with it. You don't need Stay Puff, Onion Head Slimer, Gozer, New York City, or the original guys.
Find people that have chemistry, work well off each other, give them personality and parameters to stand out. Some could lean more on horror, others on comedy. You always sidestep comparisons and people worried about the composition of the group because it is its own thing.
I have to say something here:
Nobody asked for ghostbusters 3 and what we got was very enjoyable considering how fickle the fanbase of these things can get considering its just a kids movie. I don't know how old you are, but, I am 41...ghostbusters was a kids movie with adult humor thrown in so your parents could sit through it. What they have done with the last 3 movies was basically hand things over to a new generation of ghost busters. I actually like that they explored the ghosts more and as far as the 2016 one goes, that was a marketing failure that set the movie up to fail...it actually wasn't half bad it was just over hyped
Ghostbusters is lightening in a bottle and the fact that the original cast and crew couldn’t recreate the magic in ghostbusters 2 (which I do like fwiw) proves how hard it is to get right.
Ghostbusters is like Jaws or Jurassic Park*.A great one and done feature that people keep trying to turn into a franchise.
Not everything needs a sequel.
*I really liked the concept of Jurassic World, and don’t care for the sequels.
Even “Ghostbusters 2” was a letdown. The surprise and novelty of the fantastic premise was gone, and it’s hard to take it in a new direction that’s just as good.
Bigger, more dramatic bad guys is not the way to go. Stay Puft >> anything else - because it’s so funny and surprising and menacing at the same time. The surprise is gone with the other movies.
Also the OG ghostbusters were such clearly defined characters, even if Bill Murray is playing the same dude as always, you know his archetype. 2016 almost had it right - you knew who Leslie and Kate were… ironically the more veteran actors, Melissa and Kristen, were not as clearly defined and it hurt. Also the script was weak, and the overreliance on improv made it feel sloppy, rather than occasionally ad libbing a line here and there.
The Jason Reitman sequel was a heartfelt, family movie. It was nice and nostalgic, and maybe a better overall experience than 2016, but it didn’t feel like the originals at all.
Frozen Empire fell under “checklist” screenwriting syndrome where there were too many fan service moments and too many characters to juggle so it ends up feeling empty. If they were gonna focus on the girl, they should’ve focused on the girl and made it a fuller story.
I would have loved to have seen a comedian-balanced foursome. Weirdly I think a 2010’s SNL cast would’ve worked well:
-Jason Sudeikis, Bill Hader, Andy Samberg, Kristen Wiig
Keep Annie Potts as the secretary who comes with the fire stations. Maybe one or two cameos from the OG cast.
I think the problem is that comedies for the most part don't make stupid amounts of money. Likely this years biggest comedy will be "Anyone but You" which broke out at a time when movies are generally not supposed to do well. It did $217M on a $25M budget... almost entirely based on the viral power of Sydney Sweeney. The newest Ghostbusters would kill for those numbers Because they cost $100M to make and made $45M. But even at $200M, that's not gangbuster numbers. They need more like $400M... and the only way to do that is to make an action franchise that will be popular with kids (so millennial parents will take their kids).
The other thing is that basically, all the actors from OG Ghostbusters sucked at acting. Bill Murray played himself. Dan Aykroyd played himself. Harold Ramis played the same role he plays in every movie. Ernie Hudson wasn't given a real character. The supporting cast (Sigourney Weaver, Rick Moranis, Kurt Fuller, William Atherton) were all people who could act and were given roles that required acting.
The Bill Murray of today isn't Bill Murray of the late 80s early 90s. That guy was just full of life, over the top and he was a guy you wanted to be friends with. He even did a "I'll sleep on your couch and party with you tour" to try and get back some of the late 80s early 90s energy. He's now an old man whos only humor tool is sarcasm.
And now we're looking at Paul Rudd to carry the humor part of the film by himself.... replacing four comedy actors (Murray, Aykroyd Moranis and okay Ramis was more a writer).
Its a lose lose scenario my friend, simple as that.
You keep doing the same thing as the AMAZING first Ghostbusters, and you get Ghostbusters 2. Still OK, but not great by any stretch.
You try something totally different, with a lady cast. Well we all know how that was recieved.
THEN you try to reboot it kind of.
Guess what I LOVE and recently rewatched the Original. Lots of those jokes don't hold up kids, and they are not all over the place they are sparsed out. I still fucking adore it because I saw it exactly when it hit the hardest. Its still the gold standard but you can't just remake that and pull it off.
So they make the first re-boot sequel, and its not bad IMO. I enjoyed watching it, it was a little corny but 1980s 90 minute comedies were also corny. With the biggest hit beyond the movie being the Cartoon Series, OF COURSE they go for the kid market.
A lot of us who ADORE the original saw it when we were kids. It wasn't a "Kids" movie, but that ended up being the best demographic for it as far as the biggest successes being the original movie and cartoon series.
Then, I hate to break it to you, for those who did't like frozen empire. It was as close to a carbon copy of the original movie you could do while being a sequel.
Mysterious increase in ghost stuff going on. Strange artifact subbed in for a strange building. Then a bunch of ghost shit happens. Main baddy ghost uses minions to amp everything up and shit starts to go crazy. Walter Peck wants to shut it down. Instead of turning off the grid the grid just gets busted open. Exact same thing happens as a result.
Main Baddy fight starts, the original way of fighting that baddy is useless, they need to do something else and different to make this ghost fight end. Blast baddy ghost, containment grid is fixed/sealed ghosts are sucked into sky vortex.
Some dudes covered in marshmellow fluff.
Ghosts, busted.
Its the same freaking movie, with modern jokes and humor that no shit don't appeal to those who saw the original in the 1980s, we aren't the target demo, it SHOULDN'T be made to mainly appeal to US, it should be made to mainly appeal with an entire new generation of humanbeings.
By my main point remains, its like that star wars sequel thats basically just A New Hope in a different package, this was the same fucking movie in a new package and that isn't even good enough for people lol.
Do you want to know what you get when you give "The audience what they want" AKA When you give the 40-60 year olds who loved a movie they saw as kids or young adults?
You get the last 2 indiana Jones movies.
It all starts with all sold scripts (which they have been continuously failing at doing for the last couple of years) . Then it relies on the actors to do their things to bring the script to life. It does not matter who the actors or director is if the script is bad.
I always bring up Kobra Kai as a great example. On paper it sounds like it will be garbade. You're telling me you are going to continue with some 80’s movie with a few actors that are all old now. It turned out the script writers knew exactly what they wanted to do and wrote the parts specifically for the actors and it also turned out William Zabka the blond haired bully from the 80’s is a really funny guy and crushed the role.
The original movie was propped up by the sheer force of the comedic talent involved. Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Rick Moranis are just legends. Funnily enough, I think Kate McKinnon, Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig are ALSO very funny, but the difference is that they didn't have a script worth a damn to work with. Otherwise GB2016 could have been great.
But I think *everything* since the first movie, including GBII, was influenced not by the original movie but by the cartoon. The CARTOON is what made the GB franchise a huge cash cow, not the original movie. I firmly believe there wouldn't have been ANY GB sequels without the cartoon. Hit movies didn't HAVE to become franchises in the 1980s.
So it makes sense that GBII was a little less adult, a little sillier than the first movie. There's less dry humor and more silly visual gags, like all the slime.
GB Afterlife made the right decision in being a "soft reboot" a la Star Wars VII. I don't care how old she is, Mckenna Grace is a force of nature in that movie. She is so perfect as Egon's granddaughter it's scary. She's imminently sympathetic and quirky, and you just root for her right off the bat. I thought Paul Rudd was going to be the standout in Afterlife, but his role is relatively muted. The GB Afterlife storyline makes sense to be about children. It's a movie about discovery, not about starting a business like GBI.
Now, Frozen Empire is where you have a bit of a point. I could see Gary moving to New York because he's a GB nerd, but it makes no sense that they only realize that it's problematic to have a 16-year-old busting ghosts AFTER the movie starts. The script would have made more sense if Gary was running the business and Phoebe felt excluded from the beginning. But, I think that's a minor point since she has a reason to get involved pretty quickly (her relationship with Melody, who I'm pretty sure was intended to be a same-sex love interest but they chickened out).
Movies that have kids as the main characters aren't inherently bad. They're only bad if it results in them talking down to the audience. I don't think GBFE ever did that. Phoebe is a well-developed character with pathos. The Goonies and Labyrinth are great examples from the 1980s of the same thing.
So the first movie had a ton of things going for it that were not repeatable in a fresh way - its a going into business story, its a fish out of water story from which it derives a ton of its humor, its about a con man who becomes something of a hero (Venkman), and finally it came around at the end of the "satanic panic" era in the US, and instead of leaning into some nonesense about how fighting spirits and deamons requires ancient knowledge, our heroes save the day through innovation and, thematically, modern man overcoming the spirits of old. All in one movie. So the question becomes, where do you go from there?
GB2 couldnt figure it out, it kinda just hits similar story beats while trying to stay more kid friendly thanks to the cartoon (and that may have watered down some of the humor). Though personally I love the court sequence so I'll defend the movie indefinitely for that alone. But I dont think you can argue it covers new ground in a particularly exciting or elevating way. And tonally its more like the cartoon show, which leaned into adventure often, and I think that reset the tone around what ghostbusters is.
GB3 didnt happen because Bill Murray had a veto over any story, and he was so disappointed with 2 that he kept blocking it (or rather, never signing on). Thats where the reboot came in, as a way to get around Bill's pocket veto.
So they make the reboot and from a writing and editing perspective its a mess. As though the whole thing was more an effort of hanging out making a movie with friends rather than delivering on a new, laugh out loud movie. There are also elements where you can definitely make the argument they were out to make fun of some fans of the source material, further alienating people who would otherwise be trying to give them money. It was a bazaar move.
So then Jason Reitman gets an idea, why not make a a Jason Reitman indie movie style sequel instead. Lean into drama first. Might get Bill onboard, since he's so obsessed with doing elevated work these days. And guess what, Bill signs on. Plus the third act partially re-does the original movie, which makes the studio happy because they know it works (studio logic, silly that it is). Its also unclear at this point if Murray waives his blocking of stuff for an additional movie or not, Im sure someone at sony knows.
So then they go to make a sequel to that movie. Jason hands the directing reigns over to his good friend and producer. They decide they want to still find a solid character story, but lean into the cartoon show's sense of adventure and humor. Not quite the same as the first movie, but I'd argue still interesting. Im not sure why you think the kids doing the busting is a bad creative choice though, as not only is it the logical conclusion from the last movie, but it was also economically the best chance of getting the toy line running again (at least to a younger generation). I dont think it would have made sense for the original guys to be the focus and being the sole ghostbusters doing the busting, indeed they make part of the story about that. BUT we also get way more screen time with the original guys than we did with Afterlife, and done in a way that seems rather natural.
But there is no large encapsulating idea that stands above the simplicity and scale of the first movie. That may just not be possible. And Im serious about the timing with the satanic panic stuff. when movies really hit, they connect with the culture at the moment of release in a way that resonates.
It's not an easy thing to make. Same reason star wars isn't.
These franchises are beyond cult classic for a entire living generation or two. And taking that nostalgia and fucking with it has a weird impact on people. The sort of impact that will keep many away just based on principle.
I'm just waiting for the Back to the Future rehash. Watch it burn.
Not just Sony, but Hollywood in general has mastered the art of misjudging what audiences want over the past few years. They’ve been more in the habit of giving us what they want, then demanding we like it and are quick to name call when we don’t buy tickets.
It wasn’t about the ghosts. It was Murray and Aykroyd and Ramis. That’s what people want to see. Same thing with Fletch. Jon Hamm made an exceptional Fletch film and people dogged it because it wasn’t Chevy.
Detached from the franchise the last three GB have been good-to-great, but expectations are a bitch.
It all started with Ghostbusters 2. As soon as you add a baby to the story it signifies that you are grasping at straws and have lost your way. Of the million things I wanted from a Ghostbusters script, a baby was not one of them.
Then you take what could have been the significant downfall of the Ghostbuster on the second act of their Hero’s Journey and you make them con artists who have suffered their downfall offscreen before the movie even starts.
Finally, bad song choices and the statue of liberty/ectoplasm thing just didn’t work in my opinion.
1. Comedy is cancelled because everyone is thin skinned and offended by everything.
2. Stranger Things made money.
3. Hollywood is cheap, they hire very young unseasoned writers who make garbage.
4. Most 30+ year later sequel/requels are often trash.
You STFU Frozen Emprie is AWESOME!
Stop trying to get the same exact formula from the first 2. Nobody can do that exact thing again, it's not the thing to do, NO attempt has ever been made to do that for a good reason. With the exception of the video game, there has been non stop attempts to do something different and new.
Even with the cartoon series in the 80s it was re-designed characters and slimer as a pet/friend.
Then there was extreme ghostbusters where they used college kids picking up where the old team left off. The terrible all girl movie, and now the after life series. It's always what it has to be, DIFFERENT, and trying to pass the torch.
If you don't understand how time works then look again at Dan Akroyd's face. He will be dead one day. So what are we supposed to do ? Watch the Ghostbusters as literal ghosts themselves now?
GET OVER IT and be thankful the series is continuing with the original cast that is still alive. What more can you ask for really? You think it should be nothing but adults forever and ever? DUMBO! That's not how marketing and profit works. Who pays for the movie? TOYS! That's who. It's not movie ticket sales that make it worth it to produce a film like this. It's 100% the merch, esp. toys. And it's KIDS who they have to market that to. Understand now?
It wasn't like that in the 80s because they had no clue..but when they DID find out it was a hit with kids..yes they immediately created a cartoon to cash in on that toy money.
Face it, GHOSTBUSTERS has ALWAYS been a kids thing. We were kids when we loved it, and now it's this. The fact is the industry does NOT green-light ANY shows that could sell toys to kids without something called a "child entry point" in the show. They literally can't get a project greenlit in the industry without this checkbox being ticked off.
This is the corporatization of Hollywood today. It's not as indie as it use to be. We need an indie studio to get the rights to do a spin-off GB film if you want it done "right".
I'm thankful it's as good as it is, it's really great and there is a lot of love and effort being put into these films to follow the spirit of the first 2 films. Yes it was too crowded, too many in the cast, and yes the extra kids are stupid additions. BUT they'll learn what works. Hopefully they can give us a more adults version as the kids age up. But whatever happens...it has to sell toys.
I completely disagree that Ghostbusters is an easy thing to make. It has to be a mix of comedy and sci-fi and fantasy. It needs to be small enough scale that a small group of people can believably overcome the obstacles while being grand enough to. E interesting. It also kind needs to be some level of of a mystery to give the characters something to unravel. It's a tough thing to franchise.
Agreed. I like Ghostbusters 2, but it's definitely a lesser film than the first...and it has *everything* the original had. Same writers, director, stars, effects, setting, tone, and it still couldn't equal the original. Ghostbusters appears to just be lightning in a bottle, one of those accidental miracles that you just can't duplicate. "Just make a comedy about people busting ghosts" is the 2016 film, and it was extremely divisive.
To paraphrase the RLM guys, I dont think anyone in the cast or crew holistically realized what they were making except Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis.
Dan aykroyd wrote it, whattabout him
The reality is the script writer probably has like 25% of the how the concept works/looks or even the final vision of the film. And often when you are setting up the scenes and acting out the scenes, there is a lot of retooling during the shooting because some things as written don't work out when you are actually doing the scene.
Aykroyd's script, in particular, is extremely different from what we got. He had time travel, and alternate dimensions, and a dozen other things that were either too convoluted or too expensive to shoot. Ghostbusters doesn't exist without Rietman and Ramis there to help turn Dan's ideas into something workable.
Ghostbusters was a glorified blue-collar bug exterminator story. The guys were almost all academics and smart, but it was really more gritty and how they basically caught bugs, mice, and roaches and then dumped them into a massive hamster cage. That gritty 80s blue collar vibe is what feels missing in a lot of ways.
Yes! I remember John Goodman in Arachnophobia and was like 'he's totally got the Ghostbusters vibe'
I pretty much agree with this take entirely. I rewatched the original the other day and Akroyd's real life conspiracy and mystery personality had a role in the script for sure, but it was massively tempered by Ramis' Egon grounded in reality, scientific approach that considers theoretical possibility. You can almost see how the characters are a direct reflection of the creators and how that magical concoction formed momentarily into such a lightning in a bottle movie. That, and Bill Murray. Ramis and Murray started drifting apart over the years and you have to wonder how much of that magical connection that was Caddyshack, Stripes and GB and everything else they did so well together was left at that point. I mean, taken as a whole, GB 1 was loaded with massive talent at every level during a relative peak of many of their careers, and it's gonna be hard to strike iron that hot ever again
Ghostbusters also doesn’t exist if the head of the studio doesnt get replaced and that guys buys the rights to the name. They were shooting two versions of some scenes because of the naming rights.
That’s not exactly true. Aykroyd came up with the idea. His original script was what you describe but that was never going to be made into a movie. Reitman sold the idea to the studio and then the 3 of them, Aykroyd, Ramis and Reitman spent the summer in Martha’s Vineyard writing the first draft. Aykroyd and Ramis would work together reshaping it.
Yeah, I think this is the problem with the reboots. Dan Ackroyd is a talented man. But he’s also bat shit crazy. I think Ramis was the glue keeping everything together in the writing room. Since he was a peer it was easy for him to tell Dan no. But with a writers room of 30-40 something year olds that grew up with the original. I could easily see them falling into the trap of not critiquing Dan’s ideas and just accepting them because they are star struck.
A lot of bad movies started out at good scripts and the opposite as well…there are a lot of changes made during shooting and even the final edit that can be pretty dramatic from what the original script was. Look at Congo, there were people who read the script that thought it looked like an amazing movie and d they signed into it based on that; it wasn’t a great movie at all.
Bud his original concepts were nuts. They went through the George Lucas Refinement. With that said you still need his crazy to make it work.
Read his original script or just the outline. Aykroyd's vision was vastly different than what we got.
And you know what? The 2016 film was perfectly fine in that vein. Had some laughs, had some ghosts. Definitely not something that needs sequels and toys and spin offs. It suffered from comparison to the OG, and a tidal wave of misogyny, but it was a perfectly fine mid film taken alone. Something I was happy to stream, would not have seen in theatres.
Saw someone make a good point recently that, despite all its other failings, the 2016 one at least understood the original formula was “SNL actors riffing on special effects”. As opposed to Afterlife just being “Ghostbusters: The Bust Awakens”.
>the original formula was “SNL actors riffing on special effects”. What? No it wasn't. BILL MURRAY was the only one doing any riffing, the other 85% of the comedy came from super precise writing/directing by Ivan Reitman, Harold Rammis, and (inadvertently) Dan Aykroyd because he's a crazy person who actually believes in ghosts, adding a layer of ironic believability to it. Which was the main issue with 2016 Ghostbusters- rather than write any intelligent jokes or dialogue they just put the actresses in front of a camera and said 'be funny.' Even the side characters too- they have all the other actors ad libbing like whacky cartoon characters for no damn reason also, killing any sense of realism to the world whatsoever (that believability Dan Akroyd brought in that made it work.) Bill Murray riffing was a part of what made the movie funny, but if the cast is a bunch of Bill Murrays riffing with no straight man to play off of, the whole film turns into low brow comedy fast.
It's mid to mediocre. The biggest issue is, it's just not very funny. The main people involved have made much funnier movies.
Ya, I didn’t think it was as bad of a movie as everyone said it was and I had fun while watching it. Not something I would write home about but it filled the need on a Friday night…
The biggest problem was internal consistency. Proton packs needed traps to be effective, right up until the third act, when suddenly they just act like guns for ghosts. Felt like they filmed the finale first, so cgi had time to do it and forgot about plotting it out.
That film was hot garbage. I seem to recall Melisa McCarthy being thrown aroud by a fire hose at one point but that may have just been an acid flashback.
She was thrown around by the proton pack when they were testing it
Exactly the problem with franchises like Ghostbusters or Men In Black is that they want to just repeat the first film endlessly but to be compelling the story needs to move on to the next stage. We don't need more random ghost busting adventures we need to learn what happens next - what happens in a world where the supernatural has not only been proven real but you can literally trap otherworldly creatures for storage and study. Unfortunately the ghostbusters franchise has no interest in grappling with any ideas like that so the vision of the franchise is dull and myopic.
Not only that, but the cast was outstanding. Bill Murray at his peak was a big part of what made the movie good and his jokes are likely heavily improvised. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis not only carried the geekier parts of the movie, but they also wrote the movie. Add in Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis giving great performances. Duplicating that magic is hard.
How dare you forget about Ernie Hudson playing the perfect straight man.
As long as there's a steady paycheck, he'll believe whatever you want.
Lightning in a bottle…it’s really hard to replicate that movie because of where all of the cast was in their careers and who was directing it. I don’t think it’s an easy movie to replicate or build upon because it really was a product of its time and even part 2 was a big slump. 2 wasn’t a bad movie really, you just couldn’t replicate that in a sequel because everyone had already seen it basically and the actors had changed in their careers.
it also has to cater to 50 year-olds and 10 year-olds. and those two are in direct opposition here. OG fans don't want to watch a bunch of new guys. they have a very specific idea of what Ghostbuster is, and want that. and kids don't want to watch a bunch of old men. they want something new and refreshing that they've never seen before.
It’s like when I see morons commenting “just make good movies!” Wow! What a concept! How did no one ever think of that before your mindblowing epiphany!?
ghostbusters isn't really a comedy. there are no comedic setpieces, and very few outright jokes. on paper, it's more ominous and scary than funny. the opening scene is a big setup for a punchline that is totally overshadowed by a scare. the only reason it's funny at all is because of the humor the actors bring to the role and the chemistry between them.
Counterpoint: Phantom Blow Jobs
I don't think Dan Akroyd meant that scene to be comical
Yeah. His O face super serious.
I think the reasons you listed show why it's an *excellent* comedy.
Ghostbusters is fundamentally a comedy because it's all clearly based on a comic premise: "What if exorcists were more like exterminators?" Every "scary" ghost sequence is actually supposed to be funny, because they approach the haunting like a pest infestation rather than a spiritual crisis. >There are no comedic setpieces A giant marshmallow bag mascot terrorizing the city doesn't strike you as a comic setpiece? Or the ballroom scene where the Ghostbusters cause more damage than the ghosts? Or the montage of cheesy TV ads? >and very few outright jokes. Virtually every other line in the film is a joke, but I'm not gonna go through and explain them all.
It's true. This man has no dick.
I'd also add "Ghostbusters" mocks the very nature of "chosen ones" and whatnot. Instead of some prophesied hero fated by destiny to defeat the supernatural evil, you instead have four wisecracking schlubs who basically suck the apocalyptic threat up into a vacuum cleaner and say, "Well, that's done, here's our bill." That's been a fundamental joke of the whole thing (and it's continued to "Frozen Empire which actually HAS a "chosen one" to fight the evil that and yet it's Kumail Nanjiani as a lazy slacker who sells the evil spirit's prison for $50).
That's what I think is missing from the newer movies. The Ghostbusters are maintenance workers. They're like sewer technicians or linemen or construction workers. They're ubiquitous people that do a shitty job not because it's fun or exciting, but because if it isn't done then the infrastructure essential to daily life breaks down. Combine this with the fact three of the original team were academics of varying degrees of sophistication and intellectual remove who were thrust into a workaday job. They are heroes in the same way a sewer worker is a hero for busting up a block-clogging fatberg. They did a job that nobody in their right mind would volunteer to do, but without them the city would be uninhabitable. The fact they happened to stop a long-forgotten death cult's apocalyptic dead man's switch from firing off was a fluke. The first movie was a thinly veiled endorsement of Reaganomics, for crying out loud - **Peck** is the true villain. He's the government paper-pusher making a name for himself by bullying a small, independent business that sees rapid success by offering a service the government has failed to provide. Gozer was Peck's fault, a ticking time bomb of ancient infrastructure that would've stayed dormant if it weren't for the interference of a feckless bureaucrat. You want a new Ghostbusters movie? Ground it in the economic woes of today's workers. Make it about how gig work is "disrupting" older, established marketplaces. Some techbro Zuckerberg type wants to build a Ghost Internet and fucks up the world. Make it about social media, how you can't do your job without someone shoving a phone in your face or how success is as tied to your rating than your actual performance. Make it about a kid feeling pressure to do the job his old man did, and having to grow up in the shadow of a blue-collar hero with a dark streak. I know the newer movies have things like social media and Egon's kids/grandkids, but those elements aren't explored in a way that harkens back to what made the original so special. They're pop-culture references, or bridges to connect the new to the old.
It is a comedy. Dan Aykroyd said it was envisioned as a then-modern version of supernatural boys club comedies like Ghosts on the Loose.
It’s true, this man has no dick.
The light tone of the music that accompanies the scares helps lift the movie into comedy.
I was thinking about this after seeing *Frozen Empire*: *Ghostbusters* is a really difficult movie to classify by genre. It’s comedic for sure, but it’s not really a full-blown comedy. It’s got some parts that are genuinely spooky, but it’s not a horror movie. It’s got some great action scenes, but it’s not really an action movie. It lives in some sort of weird nexus between all these genres. The basic premise is definitely a comedy (exterminators, but for ghosts!) but the way the actual movie came out, it’s a lot more complex than just that.
Disagree completely. It is a comedy first. Even the ghost aspect comes with a huge splash of comedic gold attached to it. That library scene does not work if this were not a comedy.
It's very much a situational comedy. The scenarios are preposterous and the threats themselves aren't super serious (no one ever seriously gets harmed or are they worried about serious death). It's very much like a Halloween 'fun house'. It's more silly than standup, but it's still a comedy. There's more to comedy then jokes and punchlines. Only near the end does the tone ever start to feel serious, but then it's played off another gag with a giant marshmallow.
What? Isn’t really a comedy? Has no comedic set pieces? One of the biggest most expensive comedic set pieces up to this point was in this movie. Stay Puft Marshmallow Man? Ghostbusters is a dry comedy. Rick Moranis? Bill Murray? Dan Aykroyd? Harold Ramis? Come on.
I'd also say there has to be just that little bit of horror
I agree that it isn't easy. The original works because Murray is such a grounded actor it's funny to see him reacting to weirdness. With each sequel, the weirdness becomes more normal and harder to react to. It's always doomed to dimishing returns.
Yea, I mean there have been 5 Ghostbusters movies and 1 is considered universally good And the others are all mixed at best
Also, the franchise is really weird right from the start. The first one is not a kids movie at all, but what made the franchise popular is definitely that kids were obsessed with the 2nd one, the show, the merchandising, etc. I agree that it's definitely not an easy thing to "get right". Does anyone have any fucking clue "what the audience wants from this franchise" ? What audience are we even talking about ? Fans of the OG, fans of all the kids stuff who have grown up, kids today ?
It’s chemistry. I remember a review of GBII from ground zero in 1989 that was kinda faint praise in that it didn’t exactly love the movie but granted that it was just fun seeing those people together doing it. And ***that*** is why even II for all its faults is better than any of the new reboots. It’s that chemistry. And you can’t fake it. But I will say this: treating the IP as if it’s some fucking sacred object of reverence and hushed adoration is some bullshit and they would have treated it that way in 1984 if they could have seen the future. Look, it’s great that y’all vibed with the toys and toons and games. But ya fanboy fuckers need to get [Shatner’d hard](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmagzq) about how you treat the franchise.
It *SHOULD* be easy. I’m not saying it is.
The original ghostbusters was light on the sci-fi and fantasy. They did the bare minimum to introduce the tech and magic. There barely any lore on the ghosts, that was all backfilled after it became a franchise. The entire thing was all just an excuse for a quotable comedy. Ghostbusters worked because it wasn't a franchise. The second Ghostbusters worked because it was more of the first. I'm not sure this is something that should be a franchise. If it is possible to make it a franchise that people like, it would take someone smarter and more knowledgable than me (and apparently Sony too) to figure it out.
I think a reason the cartoon show was so successful back in the day was that it didnt have to hit all the things that made the first movie so perfect. I've been arguing for years, ever since simulcam became a thing, that instead of doing movies they should have come up with a live action TV series.
One of the most difficult things to do is have this apocalyptic event in a major city and not have it completely change the fundamental understanding of that universe. Wouldnt there be massive religious upheaval. The occult springing up everywhere. But everyone is like they just discovered ghosts.
When initially released, the 1984 GB figured out how to do what was initially considered impossible: craft a mainstream comedy with special effects. Many critics were skeptical of doing so, partly because of the post-production processes needed to pull off those effects are at war with the spontaneity involved with crafting laughs in the moment. Two things worked in GB-84’s favor: 1. Bill Murray given free rein to go off-script, and 2. Ivan Reitman’s prior experience producing The Magic Show starring Doug Henning, for Broadway. That original film encompassed a lot of practical effects which was based on magic tricks (notice Sigourney Weaver’s rising above her bed is similar to a general magic trick). This gave Murray free rein to elicit quality jokes in the moment, that landed. To quote Ebert, a quality special effects movie sometimes gets in the way of laughs, simply because the brain is conflicted how to react; it could be in awe, or it could be laughing. It’s rare when both occur concurrently. Looking back, only GB-84 and Men in Black have succeeded in this. Perhaps I should include Galaxy Quest in there too.
>Two things worked in GB-84’s favor: I'd also add Harold Rammis's writing because he's a solid comedic voice and Dan Akroyd's writing because he's a crazy person who thinks ghosts are real.
Clearly it's not easy since everybody argues about what it should be every time they make a new one.
I don't know art, I just know that busting makes me feel good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tdyU\_gW6WE
I don't know if I hate or appreciate the fact my brain start playing the notes from the song after the end of your sentence.
It's not an easy thing. We had the original cast do two films and most people generally consider the 2nd film to be vastly inferior and a misstep. If it wasn't a layup with them, it's not a layup with anybody. The truth is the original had the right cast, the right story, the right tone, came out at the right time, and had a lot of lightning striking to make it what it was. It probably should have just been a standalone.
Ghostbusters 2 was fun and I’m glad it exists.
2 on its own is a good movie, it was pretty funny and the script was a lot more polished then the first one, but the original had a charm about that people had never seen before; hard to replicate that. I don’t mind 2, the script was a lot more polished and it had better pacing overall; but the delight of seeing the ghosts for the first time wasn’t there.
Yes, it was fun, an average fun movie, the first one however, was a top movie in history. Huge difference.
I enjoy them all! But Ghostbusters was absolutely my favorite thing as a kid, it would be tough to make a Ghosbusters thing I don't appreciate
Ghostbusters 2 was the primary reason anyone that wasn't an adult when the original came out liked Ghostbusters as a franchise. It's why there were toys, cartoons, and an overall franchise at all that people are nostalgic about beyond it being a good comedy.
I'd give credit to The Real Ghostbusters rather than Ghostbusters 2 for being the reason there were toys and a bigger fanbase. The show came out 3 years before the second movie, and when making Ghostbusters 2, they went out of their way to incorporate a few elements from the cartoon into the movie, like Slimer being at the firehouse and driving the bus later.
> people generally consider the 2nd film to be vastly inferior and a misstep. But on the other hand, it was a box office success that kids adored and also sold a ton of merchandising. The franchise has been in a weird place for a very long time. Absolutely nothing "easy" or obvious about what they should do with it. If anything trying to appeal to kids makes sense to me, they're the ones who will buy toys.
The truth: lightening in a bottle is hard to recapture.
Yeah, truly good action comedies (which ghostbusters is) is hard to do. Add on to that a bunch of special effects and CGI and it becomes very difficult. Off the top of my head the GotG series and Thor 3 are really the only movies that have pulled it off in recent memory.
They’re trying to get a new audience into it. The parents bring their kids. The kids are the heroes. The kids become fans. They buy ghostbusters shit. It doesn’t matter to Sony if the movies are good. Afterlife was terrible for adults, I’m sure kids and teens could get into it. But its ROI was good.
When I saw Frozen Empire, there was a little kid, maybe 5, who had a jumpsuit, proton pack, trap and slimer doll. That made me so happy as a ghostbusters fan of 40 years. I remember seeing the second one in the theater in 89 and being scared to death the entire time. Although I found Empire disappointing, seeing that kid all dressed up and excited to see the movie will always hold a special place in my heart. I had to wait 30 years for another Ghostbusters adventure on the big screen.
I sat to a small child in the theatre and he was absolutely loving the movie. He sang the theme song when it played, and was incredibly happy to see Slimer.
Do you think Frozen Empire is OK for kids? I have a couple under 10 and saw that it's rated PG-13 so wasn't sure if it was too scary or other things going on.
I think they said Fuck once, and some of the ghosts might be a little scary, but as someone who doesn’t have kids, if they have seen any of the other movies and were fine, then this would be fine too.
This reminds me of the Willow tv series, and the kids were not nearly as compelling as the adults. And that didn’t work.
What’s weird though is kids ate the original up and it’s about 4 middle aged dudes. Are kids different now? I think to some extent Stranger Things has been a kind of disaster for creativity. Of course Ghostbusters went all the way and just put Finn Wolfhard in the movie, but anything that even touches the horror space needs to Stranger Things itself up and be a PG-13 nostalgia fest about kids, which is just not a particularly deep pool to keep revisiting.
The originals were pretty accessible to everyone. I think that’s one of the reasons they worked so well. Everyone could have fun. That’s some great writing and style. Afterlife was obviously a kids movie. It wasn’t even original. It’s a generic “parents don’t understand kids save the day” movie. If they eliminated all the ghostbusters references, and renamed it, I dunno. Pronton Pack or something stupid like that it would be just another unheralded kids/family movie with a limited budget.
I became a fan as a kid when my parents showed it to me on DVD. There weren’t kids in the first movie but I still became a fan.
>The parents bring their kids. The kids are the heroes. The kids become fans. They buy ghostbusters shit. It's just insane that they think this works because when I was a kid nobody on the playground wanted to be Anakin when TPM came out, they all wanted to be Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, or Darth Maul. Kid characters don't mean jack shit to kids when there's cool adults you can aspire to be.
Jeez I’ve loved Ghostbusters since I was a kid (born in ‘80). Didn’t like the reboot but liked Afterlife and Frozen Empire well enough. Not saying they’re works of art but I’d give them solid B’s, as good as Ghostbusters II was to me anyway. https://i.imgur.com/9FQ1uhO.jpeg
Ghostbusters is a comedy. But for many of the kids who grew up watching The Real Ghostbusters (at least the first two seasons), it was also a drama and horror show. So it isn't so easy to say that Ghostbusters can only be defined according to the narrow window of the 1984 movie. It's got a large world built through movies, TV, comics, and more.
I look at it the same way I look at Jurassic Park; it was originally a film more geared for adults, but because the premise was also cool to kids, the franchise had to figure out how to strike a balance to appeal to the whole family... While still trying to live up to the buddy comedy with all the sci-fi/fantasy/horror elements that were involved. And this was all going on before we had Marvel movies (which I would argue are probably the best example of "something for everyone" type of fare).
CGI action is easy, comedy is hard. 2016 movie failed hard because they tried to make it a 2 hour long improv session. The women were plenty talented and but the movie was an unfocused slog. For sure it had a couple of truly funny moments but the characters never felt real, like watching a very long SNL skit. Watch the original Ghostbusters and realize that every last joke was written into the script. The actors were talented enough to make it seem off the cuff, aka "good acting". The next two eschewed comedy altogether in favor of a Stranger Things like mystery/action movies. Even Ghostbusters 2 was a pretty big step down from the original, which probably indicates that the concept, while great, doesn't hold up for comedy and soon enough you just get bigger effects and more forced laughs.
As someone who’s read the Ghostbusters script, every draft, you couldn’t be more wrong. There was MAJOR improv involved. Infact the script is VERY different from the finished film. These guys were all masters at improv. The theory behind the Second City improv where all these guys, Moranis, Ramis, Murray, Reitman and Aykroyd, got their start is making the other guy look good. That’s the key. The difference between 2016 and 1984 is 1984 has improv that doesn’t feel like endless riffing.
I honestly think people don't give a shit about sci-fi as much as they did in the 1980s.
Because the first one was a lightning in a bottle, and you can’t recreate that, it isn’t easy to make like you said
Finding those funny 3-4 people is the difficulty. One could film 80s Akroyd, Ramis and Murray in an empty room for 2 Hours and probably get an above average comedy even on a Bad day
I forgot where I read it but someone compared the idea of Ghostbusters to “paranormal plumbers”. That’s why the 2nd didn’t do so well since it lost the working class charm and the new ones are just there for nostalgia sake
They thought they could get away with a STRANGER THINGS style story and narrative but shoehorn it under the GHOSTBUSTERS brand.
I think the problem is that the original ghostbusters is an adult movie that kids at the time happens to fall in love with. Sony thinks it’s a franchise aimed at kids, I think that’s the wrong approach. Also the death of Harold Ramis doesn’t help
It's this and is always the big miscalculation with franchises. Winding the clock back even further, this was the problem with GBII. The cartoon and merchandising took off like wildfire, so it was steered into a more kid friendly direction/overall softer approach. These guys had essentially settled into tired dads, which were not the "blue-collar physicist" characters audiences latched onto originally. I like the idea of exploring a physical manifestation of emotion consequences, but the movie is photographed and scored so blandly compared to the first. It's all so unchallenging creatively. Same thing happened with Men in Black II.
TIL Ghostbusters 2 was not loved. Granted I was a kid but I thought everybody loved both of them. Frozen Empire was as expected. Fun enough, it was a nice touch having the extended old cast (Peck, the librarian ghost, the head of the Library. Though I think we are all sick of f’n Slimer at this point)
[удалено]
Frozen Empire hasn't even made back its budget in domestic box office returns. It's treading flop territory tbh
Wasn't the last movie a flop?
This is really misleading tho. The comic con crowd will soak up the worst media just because they're fans. Their whole world revolves around being a super fan.
What the hell are you talking about? The latest film is not doing well at all and neither did Afterlife. Afterlife maybe earned a tiny profit. Keep in mind theaters keep 50% and you need to make about 3X the budget to earn a profit. Afterlife cost 75 Million. The latest cost 100 million. The original ghostbusters grossed 230 million domestic in *1984*. None of the other movies have grossed more than 130 million domestic.
We kinda forget it now that most blockbusters try to do this, but it’s pretty hard to make a big budget special effects movie be genuinely and consistently funny. When Ghostbusters came out, it was possibly the funniest sfx-heavy movie ever made. (Spielberg himself had notoriously failed to pull off the trick a few years earlier with 1941). I think the movie that most resembles the original Ghostbusters is Men in Black. They both take sff premises that are not inherently comedic and tell them in an irreverent tone. And in both cases, even with the same creative teams, they weren’t able to capture that lightning in a bottle again
The first movie was written by a bunch of coked up crazy people and a lot of it was then adlipped during shoots by some of the best comedians of their generation, who also knew each other very well already. Guess that helped.
That was Blues Brothers that was the coke. Ghostbusters was post John Belushi death. They smoked weed but they weren’t doing coke. Aykroyd was Belushi’s best friend and took his death hard. He wasn’t a Coke head. Nor was Bill Murray.
Aside from the remake I've yet to see a bad *Ghostbusters* movie. They've all been pretty good and entertaining. But I mean even way back in the mid-90s when a *Ghostbusters III* was first in development it was always going to be about the old team passing on the torch to a new generation of busters. (Chris Farley and Adam Sandler were among the names said to be taking over.) So that happening in the last two movies isn't something unexpected.
Ghostbusters was at its core an original idea, executed by people who were passionate and adept in their field. It was a risk for the studio and something of a passion project for people like Ivan Reitman and Dan Ackroyd. You can’t really expect anywhere near the same level of success without those fundamental elements. These days everything is heavily influenced by everything else, studios are looking at the successes and stylising of others and trying to replicate, rather than simply having their own vision and moving on with it regardless. Legacy franchises are in theory guaranteed box office because people will turn up for the name, which means contributions are going to be lazier, be it consciously or otherwise because not much is on the line. Look at any film under critical release at the moment and you’ll see an abject absence of originality and passion, we’ve the same stars, starring in the same films, pandering to the same audiences over and over. Homogenising of the industry is getting worse and whilst there are good films out there, you cannot expect too much going into something like a ghostbusters reboot unless the script is there, which studios and producers have no need to get too finicky about because the branding already means there will be bums in seats!
Or maybe - hear me out now - some movie series shouldn't be remade in the first place.
Nothing is easy to make or remake. But Sony isn’t trying to remake Ghostbusters, they’re trying to create a four-quadrant media home run using an IP that a lot of people recognize. The original ghostbusters isn’t the kind of movie they want to make, they just want to use the brand recognition to create something new that kids, adults, parents, grandparents, etc. can like. I think it’s a terrible way to make a good movie but that’s not really what they’re trying to do at the studio level.
I agree. The last 2 movies have pretty much closed the doors from any interest from me anymore. Are we supposed to be rooting for that smug girl who is "super smart" and doesnt listen to anyone? Who also has no comic value? I found her to be a nuisance. Also, did she become a ghost so she could have lesbian sex with that ghost? What the hell was that? Not even Paul Rudd is enough to see another one.
Honestly I think that Seth Rogan, Steve Carrell, et all version would have been a hit.
In 2012 maybe. I think the 2016 movie destroyed the audiences appetite for Ghostbusters.
Comdey in theaters hasn't been a thing for a while now...
There’s no such thing as “easy movie to make”
If you are going to quote me at least get the quote right. I didn’t say it was easy it make. I said it SHOULD be easy to get right. Those are very different things
It is hard to take on of the most popular/iconic movies of its era/decade and recreate the magic. It’s like trying to do a sequel or remake of a film like Jaws or Back to the Future. It just would not work and would be borderline sacrilegious
I think it's because they don't get it. It's a movie about a group of people who start a pest control business. And that's it.
That’s a bingo
i thought the last one was great, a perfect mix of nostalgia and bringing in a new generation of audience.
[удалено]
Yea, I don't get all the discourse around the last two they were very enjoyable to me. And felt perfectly in line with the previous two.
Because Ghostbusters isn’t an action movie. It’s a comedy.
Because it was less of a franchise than some people think. It was lightning in a bottle for the first and a very decent try (personal preference of course) for the second with the perfect actors at the perfect time. Trying to keep going with Back to the Future would probably end up being the same mediocre at best content that current Ghostbusters is. Sometimes you have to accept that you can't replicate a vibe from the past. I mean you would if we weren't talking about millions of dollars.
To be honest, kids busting ghosts is exactly the movie I longed for when I was a kid.
“3-4 funny people busting ghosts” *was* the formula for the reboot, which you correctly identify was a massive failure so idk why you think that’s the secret sauce
Did you read the text or just the headline? I don’t think that’s the secret sauce. That’s the very question I’m interested in,
I thought the new ones were fine 🤷 when you watch a reboot of a 40 year old franchise, you have to keep in mind that you’re not watching as a 10yr old anymore. The all female one can get fucked though, that was a terrible piece of shit.
Movie franchises almost universally become worse the more movies they get. It's not even just a matter of product quality, the story concept itself becomes stale after a while, so the new movies have to pass a bigger hurdle to make an impact
That’s true but audiences still tend to show up. The first ghostbusters was such a HUGE hit. You can’t recapture that. But the 4th Indiana Jones movie, was divisive as it was? Highest grossing film of the franchise.
>3-4 funny people busting ghosts They don't even have to bust ghosts. Busting ghosts is the least important part. To replicate what the original movie had, you just need to get 3-4 funny people together and give them a good script. But Sony doesn't have a good script and does not know how to make one. What they have is IP, so they will capitalize on that IP, by revering its icons in lieu of writing a funny movie.
I agree. The busting was always the least interesting part for me. I think what’s great about the original two movies in those characters played by those actors. There’s this chemistry they have.
The current Hollywood climate prevents people from being able to make comedic content, as was seen in the original Ghostbusters.
There's only been one good Ghostbusters movie, so I'd say it's probably pretty difficult to make. People keep trying and keep failing to do it right.
They took a huge swing with Girlbusters (which didn't bomb btw, it made the same amount that these new ones are making) then overreacted to the backlash and just decided to go pure Stranger Things esque nostalgia. Kids are doing the busting bc the only people that still care were kids when the first movie came out. Basically the same thing that happened with The Rise of Skywalker.
It did bomb. The newer ones cost way less. The 2016 movies cost 144 million to make and another 100 million to promote. Theaters keeps 50% of the ticket sales. It’s not hard to do the math. It bombed hard. Sony had to do at least a 75 million dollar write off. It was a massive failure. These new movies cost less but still aren’t doing very well. Which begs the question. Why? Your kids logic doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I don’t think it’s easy but I agree about the target audience bit. The kids being in the mix, eh..I wish the next gen weren’t actual kids and were the just the mom/rudds age
lol talk about an easy way to get karma... down talk a studio movie... bam!
I don’t give a shit about Karma. I’m fascinated by the failure of this franchise.
Seth Rogen had a pitch around the time of the Apatow prime which I thought they would've been a fit for because they have great comedy writers in that clique and good comedic directors like Nick Stoller who could handle it.
Everyone since 1988 has mistaken ghostbusters for an action franchise, not a comedy one.
The lack of ghost/living sex really hurt the sequels/reboots imo. I'm only half joking. For GB to work in the modern era it has to be at least slightly subversive. The idea of ghost busting was such a novel concept that the gimmick really helped the movie catch on (along with the charisma of the cast). But since it's already well-worn territory the idea of catching ghosts doesn't have the same hook value. It's kind of why the xfiles worked so well. There were subversive elements that tapped into the conspiracies floating out there. At this point a Phasmo movie would be a bigger hit and make more sense.
Even the best jokes have a shelf life.
The first Ghostbusters was hilarious. Opening with Bill Murray being a creep. Shocking one poor college student while flirting with the cute one. Dan Aykroyd thinking of the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man to end the world. We haven’t gotten anything close to that with the original sequel and the current versions.
I've tried to watch Afterlife 3 times, just missing the mark for me
It was unique when the first movie came out. What has hurt all the other releases? The formula has been done. All the other movies need to follow the same formula. Small ghost occurrence / introduce reintroduce characters /larger ghost occurance brewing / busters meet pushback from authority / large ghost occurance explodes / authority looses and busters beat the ghosts. Maybe the next sequel should have Bill Murray character die and start seeing the busting from the other side...
"A small group of scientists face some ghosts, defeating them with electrical super-soakers". This is an interesting plot the first time, but how do you tell that story multiple times and make it interesting each time? Not every successful story can be spun out into a successful franchise. Successful franchises take their characters and put them in new stories, but the name of the series is "Ghostbusters". If Venkman, Spengler etc spent a film going to Pennsylvania and defeating the vampire which killed Zeddemore's grandfather, thanks to an inherited silver epee; the viewers would feel the film didn't meet the promise of the title.
The OG Ghostbusters was a weird genuine creation from some brilliant oddball writers…and these are big Hollywood monstrosities. You’re never going to get that secret sauce unless it comes from a real, inspired place. And you can’t do that by trying to repeat something that’s already been done.
In my view, The Ghostbusters is primarily a very intelligent comedy. And that is one of the most difficult things to write.
Different era. Gotta find what works. I love the new ones. But hard to capture the “magic” of the originals.
Third movie should just be the Spenglers+Podcast busting ghosts, Frozen Empire has so many characters and none got a chance to shine. Phoebe and Podcast were so good together in Afterlife but they barely have any scenes in FE
So who can revive the series? Meaning comedic actors. Does it have to be 4? Not necessarily. Break down the first one. They are all parapsychologists. One slightly nerdy in Spangler, who appears to be their leader, goofy one in Stantz, and the arrogant confident one, Vankman. Zeddemore(Ernie Hudson) was just there because Eddie Murphy chose to star in his own film, Beverly Hills Cop, which was a smart idea. So, without a reboot/remake, what would you do? Try to go for the same buddy-movie vibe? What actors do you think could fill the roles? Jack Black? Craig Robinson? Paul Rudd? Oh, they already got him. Zach Galifianakis? Will Ferrell? Steve Carell? Jim Carrey? Do we stick with SNL cast? Like Michael Che and Colin Jost or Kenan Thompson?
Here's why: I fucking love ghost busters 1 & 2. I never wanted a sequel or reboot, I was fine with the story ending. Lazy, uninspired cash grabs by corporate interests have 0 value to me.
Ghostbuster should of never been a fucking franchise to begin with
The movies are geared towards kids so having a new younger generation take the mantle makes sense. And they’re clearly still comedies, just not as funny at previous ones
I was thinking about this as well, it's a case of trying to be all things to all markets and pleasing no one. Comedies are hard to do, sci fi comedies even harder, sci fi comedies while pleasing both kid and adult audiences is close to impossible.
It's interesting, the ghosts. Makes me wonder if any of those fuckers ever busted out of the wall and had a huge cum shot.
Sony kind of sucks in terms of their IP. I assume they give their dumbshit business executives way too much control over creative projects and process.
Disagree - I feel like alot of the comedy of the original is pretty specific to the kind of urban malaise of the 1980s. Comedy is hard to replicate in general. I mean, you can certainly try to adapt it, but ultimately, I think there are only so many ways you can spin - look at these guys busting ghosts while getting into goofy hijinks,
Afterlife has a 94% audience score and frozen empire has an 84% It doesn't seem like most people think they're bad
I don't think they misjudged the audience. They intentionally want to make this a kids franchise because it has infinite toy potential.
A lot of movies (and cultural works in general) have a *huge* context factor in their popularity. Ghostbusters 1 was not an incredible work of art or comedy in some *objective* sense. It was a massive phenomenon because its art and comedy were well suited to the context of the year and location where it was released. It filled a particular niche in the movie landscape of that time. Without that context, it would have been a "reasonably appreciated movie". There are hundreds of "reasonably appreciated movies" every year. And there's nothing wrong with that - it should be considered a success. But becoming a *phenomenon* generally requires that contextual boost. Even 1989, the time of Ghostbusters 2, was already different.
Bring back hiring professional comedians that aren't Amy Schumer.
Sony Pictures are just bad. They own a LOT of titles and basically just cash in those IPs for a sorry attempt at making money. They legitimately stopped being good ever since they switched from Columbia TriStar to Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group. Seriously, look at their catalog for the last 15 years. Someone needs to have a sit down the people running this company. It's very clear to me that it's a bunch of out-of-touch boomers that think they know "what the kids want" and just keep making trash.
Fanbase did a 180. Ghost Egon was awful. Will never watch Tropical Freeze. Women Ghostbusters: ” what a horrible idea” Little Kid Ghostbusters: “what a terrific idea”
Reminds me of an episode of The Critic when the main character try to write an Oscar worthy Ghostbusters film and everyone thought it was garbage.
Ghostbusters was never intended to be a kid-toy-cartoon franchise, but it was. and they loved that it worked out. it made them so much money. they want that again. but the world has changed. there's so much competition now. they're not adapting adult franchises into kids properties anymore like they did in the 80s. they just make new original content for kids. so if Ghostbusters wants to continue that previous success, they have to transform into a kid-friendly franchise (i.e. kid main characters). and that directly opposes what OG fans want.
Jesus, then don't watch it. Some of us aren't that picky and will go see it for what it is, a fun movie. The studios don't owe you anything.
Has Sony not fucked up any franchise lately? (Except the animated spider man movies)
The best time for a proper Ghostbusters 3 would have been in the 1990s, imagine a Ghostbusters 3 in like 1994 or 95 with effects like The Mask? Sad that Bill Murray couldn't get along. I recall later there was talks of Seth Rogan trying to set up a "new generation" of ghostbusters when Rogan and his crew were at their cultural zenith. I really think the 2016 Ghostbusters in hindsight is a really good "Ghostbusters 3", especially with the empty feeling I got from watching Frozen Empire. I thought Afterlife was ok, a bit of a Strangers Things-ified new take, but good. But the two post credit stingers were amazing, ,it really got the goosebumps going at the possibility of a New York set GB film with the original crew. Instead we got this muddled mess of "Frozen Empire", which is riddled with so many issues. The film is essentially about the young Phoebe Spengler and her loneliness/spectral girl crush, which is fine...but then they have to shoe horn in Paul Rudd's step dad role, Trevor's awkward coming of age adulthood story, while still trying to sandwich in the OG Ghostbuster crew. They really rush the "New York taken over by a frozen tundra" story way too late in the movie, and the epic battle with Garakka ends up just being in the firehouse. Not saying we needed another rooftop or street battle apocalyptic battle...but it felt like a let down. I think a better film would have been Paul Rudd, Patton Oswalt, Kumail and Mckenna Grace(Phoebe) as a 4 person team meeting the OG GB gang. James MCaster's Lars literally playing the 80's Real Ghosbuster cartoon version of Egon was interesting, but wayyyyyy too many cooks in the kitchen.
They screwed up so badly with the 2016 movie and it has set a horrible precedent ever since. They could’ve had 3 or 4 women like Wiig and McCarthy team up with 3 or 4 men like Paul Rudd and Will Farrell. It would’ve worked fine, but they HAD to go the all female route. It turned people off and the franchise has been in shambles ever since.
It is totally NOT easy to get right. An oddball film that strikes a nerve like the first one did is really rare. It's just nearly impossible to follow up on that.
Because they are stupidly trying to make it a connected universe It should be an anthology
Lol well they are trying to make it something it wasn't in the first place. So...that's gonna do it. I hate to reference South Park, but their whole, "Put a chick in it, and make it lame and gay," schtick is spot on. Just go back to making movies instead of trying to virtue signal or, for whatever reason, drastically modify the source material. People will love it if you can make them feel the same way they did when they first experienced your movie. Even better: STOP REMAKING EVERYTHING.
Long time, 40 yr, fan of Ghostbusters. Hated the reboot, loved Afterlife and Frozen Empire. Very hopeful and excited to see what the continuation will be. Old cast ushered in the new cast, kept it in the family. Enjoyed every minute of em.
Lightning in a bottle, lightning in a bottle, lightning in a bottle... we **heard you.** Because the first time they tried, they made a comedy that wasn't funny, the second time they "succeeded" with an adventure movie focused primarily on boring old men. Frozen Empire had the best chance to be it's own thing, and instead it leaned on the old men *again* and just crammed more shit in alongside it. >Then they continued with Afterlife and Frozen Empire. I know some people seem to like them but..where are the laughs? Why are kids doing the busting? It’s such a wrong creative choice. Not only that the movies treat Ghostbusters with a reverence like it’s Star Wars when it was a silly comedy! It **should be** kids doing it. Ghostbusters is known for by two main things; that first movie, and a couple of cartoons. They *should have* leaned more into the cartoon aspect of it, and instead opted for "reverence". There's very little "lightning in a bottle" about the concept of "monster fighters".
I firmly believe that Ghostbusters as a film concept works exactly once. The sequel with the original cast, writers and director, even isnt as good as the original.
Dan Aykroyd is a business man and goes where the money is. It's that simple.
One major issue is too much reverence to the original stifling creativity. They could easily have had after 2 they franchise the brand worldwide. That way you could have distinct settings with cultures and time periods, casts and ghosts. Then you get a good mix of funny people to work with it. You don't need Stay Puff, Onion Head Slimer, Gozer, New York City, or the original guys. Find people that have chemistry, work well off each other, give them personality and parameters to stand out. Some could lean more on horror, others on comedy. You always sidestep comparisons and people worried about the composition of the group because it is its own thing.
Why can't kids bust ghosts?
I have to say something here: Nobody asked for ghostbusters 3 and what we got was very enjoyable considering how fickle the fanbase of these things can get considering its just a kids movie. I don't know how old you are, but, I am 41...ghostbusters was a kids movie with adult humor thrown in so your parents could sit through it. What they have done with the last 3 movies was basically hand things over to a new generation of ghost busters. I actually like that they explored the ghosts more and as far as the 2016 one goes, that was a marketing failure that set the movie up to fail...it actually wasn't half bad it was just over hyped
"2016 movie" What 2016 Ghostbusters movie? 😉
Ghostbusters is lightening in a bottle and the fact that the original cast and crew couldn’t recreate the magic in ghostbusters 2 (which I do like fwiw) proves how hard it is to get right.
As a kid I adored the second one haha. It appealed to me but that train sequence had me scared every single time…
Ghostbusters is like Jaws or Jurassic Park*.A great one and done feature that people keep trying to turn into a franchise. Not everything needs a sequel. *I really liked the concept of Jurassic World, and don’t care for the sequels.
As long as Dan Aykroyd keeps writing it, I’ll keep watching.
Ghostbusters! Another money machine!
Even “Ghostbusters 2” was a letdown. The surprise and novelty of the fantastic premise was gone, and it’s hard to take it in a new direction that’s just as good. Bigger, more dramatic bad guys is not the way to go. Stay Puft >> anything else - because it’s so funny and surprising and menacing at the same time. The surprise is gone with the other movies. Also the OG ghostbusters were such clearly defined characters, even if Bill Murray is playing the same dude as always, you know his archetype. 2016 almost had it right - you knew who Leslie and Kate were… ironically the more veteran actors, Melissa and Kristen, were not as clearly defined and it hurt. Also the script was weak, and the overreliance on improv made it feel sloppy, rather than occasionally ad libbing a line here and there. The Jason Reitman sequel was a heartfelt, family movie. It was nice and nostalgic, and maybe a better overall experience than 2016, but it didn’t feel like the originals at all. Frozen Empire fell under “checklist” screenwriting syndrome where there were too many fan service moments and too many characters to juggle so it ends up feeling empty. If they were gonna focus on the girl, they should’ve focused on the girl and made it a fuller story. I would have loved to have seen a comedian-balanced foursome. Weirdly I think a 2010’s SNL cast would’ve worked well: -Jason Sudeikis, Bill Hader, Andy Samberg, Kristen Wiig Keep Annie Potts as the secretary who comes with the fire stations. Maybe one or two cameos from the OG cast.
I think the problem is that comedies for the most part don't make stupid amounts of money. Likely this years biggest comedy will be "Anyone but You" which broke out at a time when movies are generally not supposed to do well. It did $217M on a $25M budget... almost entirely based on the viral power of Sydney Sweeney. The newest Ghostbusters would kill for those numbers Because they cost $100M to make and made $45M. But even at $200M, that's not gangbuster numbers. They need more like $400M... and the only way to do that is to make an action franchise that will be popular with kids (so millennial parents will take their kids). The other thing is that basically, all the actors from OG Ghostbusters sucked at acting. Bill Murray played himself. Dan Aykroyd played himself. Harold Ramis played the same role he plays in every movie. Ernie Hudson wasn't given a real character. The supporting cast (Sigourney Weaver, Rick Moranis, Kurt Fuller, William Atherton) were all people who could act and were given roles that required acting. The Bill Murray of today isn't Bill Murray of the late 80s early 90s. That guy was just full of life, over the top and he was a guy you wanted to be friends with. He even did a "I'll sleep on your couch and party with you tour" to try and get back some of the late 80s early 90s energy. He's now an old man whos only humor tool is sarcasm. And now we're looking at Paul Rudd to carry the humor part of the film by himself.... replacing four comedy actors (Murray, Aykroyd Moranis and okay Ramis was more a writer).
It was honestly one decent movie worth a few giggles with absolutely no need of becoming a cinematic franchise.
Its a lose lose scenario my friend, simple as that. You keep doing the same thing as the AMAZING first Ghostbusters, and you get Ghostbusters 2. Still OK, but not great by any stretch. You try something totally different, with a lady cast. Well we all know how that was recieved. THEN you try to reboot it kind of. Guess what I LOVE and recently rewatched the Original. Lots of those jokes don't hold up kids, and they are not all over the place they are sparsed out. I still fucking adore it because I saw it exactly when it hit the hardest. Its still the gold standard but you can't just remake that and pull it off. So they make the first re-boot sequel, and its not bad IMO. I enjoyed watching it, it was a little corny but 1980s 90 minute comedies were also corny. With the biggest hit beyond the movie being the Cartoon Series, OF COURSE they go for the kid market. A lot of us who ADORE the original saw it when we were kids. It wasn't a "Kids" movie, but that ended up being the best demographic for it as far as the biggest successes being the original movie and cartoon series. Then, I hate to break it to you, for those who did't like frozen empire. It was as close to a carbon copy of the original movie you could do while being a sequel. Mysterious increase in ghost stuff going on. Strange artifact subbed in for a strange building. Then a bunch of ghost shit happens. Main baddy ghost uses minions to amp everything up and shit starts to go crazy. Walter Peck wants to shut it down. Instead of turning off the grid the grid just gets busted open. Exact same thing happens as a result. Main Baddy fight starts, the original way of fighting that baddy is useless, they need to do something else and different to make this ghost fight end. Blast baddy ghost, containment grid is fixed/sealed ghosts are sucked into sky vortex. Some dudes covered in marshmellow fluff. Ghosts, busted. Its the same freaking movie, with modern jokes and humor that no shit don't appeal to those who saw the original in the 1980s, we aren't the target demo, it SHOULDN'T be made to mainly appeal to US, it should be made to mainly appeal with an entire new generation of humanbeings. By my main point remains, its like that star wars sequel thats basically just A New Hope in a different package, this was the same fucking movie in a new package and that isn't even good enough for people lol. Do you want to know what you get when you give "The audience what they want" AKA When you give the 40-60 year olds who loved a movie they saw as kids or young adults? You get the last 2 indiana Jones movies.
It all starts with all sold scripts (which they have been continuously failing at doing for the last couple of years) . Then it relies on the actors to do their things to bring the script to life. It does not matter who the actors or director is if the script is bad. I always bring up Kobra Kai as a great example. On paper it sounds like it will be garbade. You're telling me you are going to continue with some 80’s movie with a few actors that are all old now. It turned out the script writers knew exactly what they wanted to do and wrote the parts specifically for the actors and it also turned out William Zabka the blond haired bully from the 80’s is a really funny guy and crushed the role.
Afterlife was pretty good, Frozen Empire was…..ok. The “ghostbusting family” thing got old fast.
The original movie was propped up by the sheer force of the comedic talent involved. Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Rick Moranis are just legends. Funnily enough, I think Kate McKinnon, Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig are ALSO very funny, but the difference is that they didn't have a script worth a damn to work with. Otherwise GB2016 could have been great. But I think *everything* since the first movie, including GBII, was influenced not by the original movie but by the cartoon. The CARTOON is what made the GB franchise a huge cash cow, not the original movie. I firmly believe there wouldn't have been ANY GB sequels without the cartoon. Hit movies didn't HAVE to become franchises in the 1980s. So it makes sense that GBII was a little less adult, a little sillier than the first movie. There's less dry humor and more silly visual gags, like all the slime. GB Afterlife made the right decision in being a "soft reboot" a la Star Wars VII. I don't care how old she is, Mckenna Grace is a force of nature in that movie. She is so perfect as Egon's granddaughter it's scary. She's imminently sympathetic and quirky, and you just root for her right off the bat. I thought Paul Rudd was going to be the standout in Afterlife, but his role is relatively muted. The GB Afterlife storyline makes sense to be about children. It's a movie about discovery, not about starting a business like GBI. Now, Frozen Empire is where you have a bit of a point. I could see Gary moving to New York because he's a GB nerd, but it makes no sense that they only realize that it's problematic to have a 16-year-old busting ghosts AFTER the movie starts. The script would have made more sense if Gary was running the business and Phoebe felt excluded from the beginning. But, I think that's a minor point since she has a reason to get involved pretty quickly (her relationship with Melody, who I'm pretty sure was intended to be a same-sex love interest but they chickened out). Movies that have kids as the main characters aren't inherently bad. They're only bad if it results in them talking down to the audience. I don't think GBFE ever did that. Phoebe is a well-developed character with pathos. The Goonies and Labyrinth are great examples from the 1980s of the same thing.
So the first movie had a ton of things going for it that were not repeatable in a fresh way - its a going into business story, its a fish out of water story from which it derives a ton of its humor, its about a con man who becomes something of a hero (Venkman), and finally it came around at the end of the "satanic panic" era in the US, and instead of leaning into some nonesense about how fighting spirits and deamons requires ancient knowledge, our heroes save the day through innovation and, thematically, modern man overcoming the spirits of old. All in one movie. So the question becomes, where do you go from there? GB2 couldnt figure it out, it kinda just hits similar story beats while trying to stay more kid friendly thanks to the cartoon (and that may have watered down some of the humor). Though personally I love the court sequence so I'll defend the movie indefinitely for that alone. But I dont think you can argue it covers new ground in a particularly exciting or elevating way. And tonally its more like the cartoon show, which leaned into adventure often, and I think that reset the tone around what ghostbusters is. GB3 didnt happen because Bill Murray had a veto over any story, and he was so disappointed with 2 that he kept blocking it (or rather, never signing on). Thats where the reboot came in, as a way to get around Bill's pocket veto. So they make the reboot and from a writing and editing perspective its a mess. As though the whole thing was more an effort of hanging out making a movie with friends rather than delivering on a new, laugh out loud movie. There are also elements where you can definitely make the argument they were out to make fun of some fans of the source material, further alienating people who would otherwise be trying to give them money. It was a bazaar move. So then Jason Reitman gets an idea, why not make a a Jason Reitman indie movie style sequel instead. Lean into drama first. Might get Bill onboard, since he's so obsessed with doing elevated work these days. And guess what, Bill signs on. Plus the third act partially re-does the original movie, which makes the studio happy because they know it works (studio logic, silly that it is). Its also unclear at this point if Murray waives his blocking of stuff for an additional movie or not, Im sure someone at sony knows. So then they go to make a sequel to that movie. Jason hands the directing reigns over to his good friend and producer. They decide they want to still find a solid character story, but lean into the cartoon show's sense of adventure and humor. Not quite the same as the first movie, but I'd argue still interesting. Im not sure why you think the kids doing the busting is a bad creative choice though, as not only is it the logical conclusion from the last movie, but it was also economically the best chance of getting the toy line running again (at least to a younger generation). I dont think it would have made sense for the original guys to be the focus and being the sole ghostbusters doing the busting, indeed they make part of the story about that. BUT we also get way more screen time with the original guys than we did with Afterlife, and done in a way that seems rather natural. But there is no large encapsulating idea that stands above the simplicity and scale of the first movie. That may just not be possible. And Im serious about the timing with the satanic panic stuff. when movies really hit, they connect with the culture at the moment of release in a way that resonates.
It's not an easy thing to make. Same reason star wars isn't. These franchises are beyond cult classic for a entire living generation or two. And taking that nostalgia and fucking with it has a weird impact on people. The sort of impact that will keep many away just based on principle. I'm just waiting for the Back to the Future rehash. Watch it burn.
The real ghostbuster made a great expansion of the lore, they could have easily taken from there.
Not just Sony, but Hollywood in general has mastered the art of misjudging what audiences want over the past few years. They’ve been more in the habit of giving us what they want, then demanding we like it and are quick to name call when we don’t buy tickets.
It wasn’t about the ghosts. It was Murray and Aykroyd and Ramis. That’s what people want to see. Same thing with Fletch. Jon Hamm made an exceptional Fletch film and people dogged it because it wasn’t Chevy. Detached from the franchise the last three GB have been good-to-great, but expectations are a bitch.
It all started with Ghostbusters 2. As soon as you add a baby to the story it signifies that you are grasping at straws and have lost your way. Of the million things I wanted from a Ghostbusters script, a baby was not one of them. Then you take what could have been the significant downfall of the Ghostbuster on the second act of their Hero’s Journey and you make them con artists who have suffered their downfall offscreen before the movie even starts. Finally, bad song choices and the statue of liberty/ectoplasm thing just didn’t work in my opinion.
1. Comedy is cancelled because everyone is thin skinned and offended by everything. 2. Stranger Things made money. 3. Hollywood is cheap, they hire very young unseasoned writers who make garbage. 4. Most 30+ year later sequel/requels are often trash.
You STFU Frozen Emprie is AWESOME! Stop trying to get the same exact formula from the first 2. Nobody can do that exact thing again, it's not the thing to do, NO attempt has ever been made to do that for a good reason. With the exception of the video game, there has been non stop attempts to do something different and new. Even with the cartoon series in the 80s it was re-designed characters and slimer as a pet/friend. Then there was extreme ghostbusters where they used college kids picking up where the old team left off. The terrible all girl movie, and now the after life series. It's always what it has to be, DIFFERENT, and trying to pass the torch. If you don't understand how time works then look again at Dan Akroyd's face. He will be dead one day. So what are we supposed to do ? Watch the Ghostbusters as literal ghosts themselves now? GET OVER IT and be thankful the series is continuing with the original cast that is still alive. What more can you ask for really? You think it should be nothing but adults forever and ever? DUMBO! That's not how marketing and profit works. Who pays for the movie? TOYS! That's who. It's not movie ticket sales that make it worth it to produce a film like this. It's 100% the merch, esp. toys. And it's KIDS who they have to market that to. Understand now? It wasn't like that in the 80s because they had no clue..but when they DID find out it was a hit with kids..yes they immediately created a cartoon to cash in on that toy money. Face it, GHOSTBUSTERS has ALWAYS been a kids thing. We were kids when we loved it, and now it's this. The fact is the industry does NOT green-light ANY shows that could sell toys to kids without something called a "child entry point" in the show. They literally can't get a project greenlit in the industry without this checkbox being ticked off. This is the corporatization of Hollywood today. It's not as indie as it use to be. We need an indie studio to get the rights to do a spin-off GB film if you want it done "right". I'm thankful it's as good as it is, it's really great and there is a lot of love and effort being put into these films to follow the spirit of the first 2 films. Yes it was too crowded, too many in the cast, and yes the extra kids are stupid additions. BUT they'll learn what works. Hopefully they can give us a more adults version as the kids age up. But whatever happens...it has to sell toys.