They are making a new Ghostbusters movie, and it appears to be a direct sequel to GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE.
The first trailer just dropped:
https://youtu.be/wFNK_KEmcWs?si=oMTNlh2dGUwh560M
I'm concerned that there are no jokes. The closest thing is a funny ho-ho reaction from Paul Rudd at the end of the trailer. AFTERLIFE was really short on jokes, I would be disappointed if this movie was the same.
It's also odd that Phoebe, the main character from the previous movie, only gets one line in the trailer.
On the other hand, it doesn't look bad, just slightly off-genre, more lightweight horror than comedy.
It could be they are saving the jokes for the movie itself, instead of spoiling them.
Anyway, it looks interesting at least.
Quote from: Lurkndog on November 10, 2023, 12:18:51 PM
I'm concerned that there are no jokes.
This about sums up my feelings on Ghostbusters nowadays.
It looks like the movie is set in New York City. I wonder what happens to get the cast of Afterlife to NYC?
After all, the whole point of Afterlife was that Quinn's family moved to the midwest because they were broke and they inherited Egon's house, which they save at the end of the movie. So theoretically they should still be there.
On the other hand, if supernatural activity comes back to New York, they're the ones young enough to chase it down, and they owe the New York crew a big favor.
Winston Zeddemore could fund the team, so they move back to NYC because of school or something.
Kumail Nanjiani said the new movie is supposed to strongly resemble an episode of The Real Ghostbusters. Which is fine with me.
New plot, new villain - I'm happy so far.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 11, 2023, 01:15:19 PM
Winston Zeddemore could fund the team, so they move back to NYC because of school or something.
Good point, I forgot about that.
I looked at the IMDB and they have William Atherton on board for GFE as Walter Peck, the EPA guy. Shouldn't he be retired, though? Though I suppose retirement is not mandatory, and he might have hung around waiting for his revenge.
They also have the late Ivan Reitman listed as a writer. So maybe they are using some notes he left behind as part of the story? And yes, I've heard of a ghost writer, nyuk nyuk nyuk.
If there is any justice in the world, the movie makes PCOC an actual thing with Walter Peck as the head.
Frankly though I'm just glad to see that fucker again. Kinda like seeing Barbossa come back at the end of the second Pirates movie. Or the Robot Devil in Futurama.
I dunno, I still haven't seen Afterlife. I didn't watch GB2016 either. I don't get worried about "no jokes" in the trailer.
Here's the original GB trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQAljlSmjC8
Original ghost busters was a kinda serious "men opening a small business" kinda movie that also happened to be about ghosts with some legitimate scary moments and had some great deadpan jokes.
Here's GB2 trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weIqC-oUGmA
Despite critisisms, I still love GB2. Its a good enough movie about them coming back into business after being shut down by corrupt government nonsense.
From what I've heard, because I've never seen it, GB2016 was like.. not serious at all? A mostly silly movie? Gag-a-minute? completely different tone from GB/GB2.
I don't have much comparison or thoughts about GB:Afterlife. I will say that movies "made for a modern audience' are mostly shit, I would rather have a movie made for an eternal audience that speaks to humanity without regard for 'modernity"
Quote from: Banjo Destructo on November 15, 2023, 09:30:46 AM
I dunno, I still haven't seen Afterlife. I didn't watch GB2016 either. I don't get worried about "no jokes" in the trailer.
Here's the original GB trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQAljlSmjC8
Original ghost busters was a kinda serious "men opening a small business" kinda movie that also happened to be about ghosts with some legitimate scary moments and had some great deadpan jokes.
Here's GB2 trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weIqC-oUGmA
Despite critisisms, I still love GB2. Its a good enough movie about them coming back into business after being shut down by corrupt government nonsense.
From what I've heard, because I've never seen it, GB2016 was like.. not serious at all? A mostly silly movie? Gag-a-minute? completely different tone from GB/GB2.
I don't have much comparison or thoughts about GB:Afterlife. I will say that movies "made for a modern audience' are mostly shit, I would rather have a movie made for an eternal audience that speaks to humanity without regard for 'modernity"
GB2016 was a mostly silly Gag-a-minute movie that wasn't funny at all.
Afterlife isn't made for modern audiences, it's made for whoever might like the orginal GB movies but it (by necesity) passes the torch to a new generation of Ghost Busters.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 15, 2023, 11:36:08 AM
Quote from: Banjo Destructo on November 15, 2023, 09:30:46 AM
I dunno, I still haven't seen Afterlife. I didn't watch GB2016 either. I don't get worried about "no jokes" in the trailer.
Here's the original GB trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQAljlSmjC8
Original ghost busters was a kinda serious "men opening a small business" kinda movie that also happened to be about ghosts with some legitimate scary moments and had some great deadpan jokes.
Here's GB2 trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weIqC-oUGmA
Despite critisisms, I still love GB2. Its a good enough movie about them coming back into business after being shut down by corrupt government nonsense.
From what I've heard, because I've never seen it, GB2016 was like.. not serious at all? A mostly silly movie? Gag-a-minute? completely different tone from GB/GB2.
I don't have much comparison or thoughts about GB:Afterlife. I will say that movies "made for a modern audience' are mostly shit, I would rather have a movie made for an eternal audience that speaks to humanity without regard for 'modernity"
GB2016 was a mostly silly Gag-a-minute movie that wasn't funny at all.
Afterlife isn't made for modern audiences, it's made for whoever might like the orginal GB movies but it (by necesity) passes the torch to a new generation of Ghost Busters.
I agree with GeekyBugle.
GB2016 was supposed to be funny, but had a terrible, unfunny script, and disrespected the original movies.
One of the things the original Ghostbusters did really well was to have all the characters take turns being the straight man for each other. When Venkman is being a wacky con man, Ray is the one going "I don't know about this second mortgage." When Egon is in mad scientist mode, Venkman's reaction is marvellously deadpan. In fact, a lot of the best jokes are delivered deadpan: "your mucus," "that's a big Twinkie," "Yes, your honor. This man has no dick."
It makes the gonzo humor funnier to have normal people having normal reactions to the craziness.
GB2016, on the other hand, just tried to pile on the wackiness. Most scenes were like Person A cracks a joke, Person B tries to top it, and then Person C goes full retard. It quickly gets repetitive, and kind of shouts at the audience SEE HOW FUNNY WE ARE??? It's telling that the only scenes that really work are the ones with Kevin the receptionist, and that's because all the female characters react as the straight man to him.
AFTERLIFE, on the other hand, was a pretty good movie. They at least treated the original movie with respect going on reverence. But it is more of a lightweight supernatural adventure movie for Egon's grand-daughter than it is a comedy. It doesn't really laugh at itself much, it focuses more on selling the narrative than it does pointing out the absurdity of the premise. But you like the characters, and they really land the third act, and you go away happy.
I had heard that at least GB1/2 had a script and some stuff was improvised, but GB2016 was basically 100% improvised and many of the different takes in each scene were different because of the improv. Reminds me of a saying about using discipline and strict limitations/boundaries to let your creativity make good things happen instead of a lot of bad stuff that never got through the pruning stage of growth.
GB 2016: who knew you can shove that much dung into a projector and still have it run.
Second trailer is out, thusly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hjlyknlTaw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hjlyknlTaw)
A little more about the big monster, some familiar faces and voices. Looks like the whole gang is getting involved.
I dig.
Quote from: Thornhammer on January 29, 2024, 09:55:50 AM
Second trailer is out, thusly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hjlyknlTaw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hjlyknlTaw)
A little more about the big monster, some familiar faces and voices. Looks like the whole gang is getting involved.
I dig.
Well, it's got a lot more humor for those who were complaining about the lack of it in Afterlife.
Me? I'm on board, but I was the moment it was anounced.
I'm a bit concerned to see it coming out in March, seems to indicate a lack of confidence in it from the studio.
On the other hand, the second trailer hits all the right notes. We get to see William Atherton returning as EPA guy Walter Peck, and still a jerk.
I'm not sure about the "no eyewitnesses" line, though. The whole point of the original movie was that things went big and loud, and a Godzilla-sized Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man was walking around Manhattan. Didn't they get a ticker-tape parade afterwards? Everybody saw that.
Then again, assholes are already denying the events of October 7th, and fools are believing them.
The movie opens this weekend, March 22, 2024.
So far I'm seeing mixed reviews. They do say that the movie is funny, which is good because the trailers haven't had a lot of jokes in them. They also like the villain.
I'm not sure if I will get out to see it, seeing movies has become more of a hike now that my local theater closed.
I'm going to try and get out to see it tomorrow night.
Looking forward to some new proton pack action to drool over.
I liked it quite a bit.
Was supposed to be reminiscent of an episode of The Real Ghostbusters and I think they succeeded. Does take a fair amount of time until the new bad guy appears. Lot of buildup to him appearing.
Not perfect, but I liked it. It does expand on the tech a bit, and would be very easy to move in a "franchise" direction after this movie.
There's also this in the second movie.
I saw it. I found it to be rather dull and generally disappointing, but the others that went with me both liked it.
Seems to be getting alot of mixed reactions with reviews leaning to a bit dull. But not unwatchable like 2016.
Good news at the box office: they are on track to make around $115m on domestic box office alone, against an estimated budget of $100m. So, with their share of overseas box office, a solid profit.
Quote from: Lurkndog on April 03, 2024, 11:22:01 PM
Good news at the box office: they are on track to make around $115m on domestic box office alone, against an estimated budget of $100m. So, with their share of overseas box office, a solid profit.
The studios only get 1/2 of the ticket price. The theaters keep the rest. So Ghostbusters current $111 million worldwide box office has only earn the studio $55 million. If Frozen Kingdom manages to get to $110 million domestic plus another 50% for international, it will end up around $165 worldwide which would only get the studio $83 million in cash.
Unless this movie has spectacular, Top Gun Maverick-level, holds, there's no way it will be profitable.
If they hadn't made it woke, I would have gone to see it. But, I guess they'd rather have all the modern audience money instead.
$115 million on a $100 million budget is not a solid profit. It's not a profit at all. The general rule of thumb is to multiply a movie's budget by 2.5 to get the movie's break even point. This is what the movie needs to make at the box office to break even after other costs and the cut that the theaters take is accounted for. By the usual rule of thumb, the movie fell short of breaking even by around $135 million.
Quote from: yosemitemike on April 15, 2024, 04:32:35 AM$115 million on a $100 million budget is not a solid profit. It's not a profit at all. The general rule of thumb is to multiply a movie's budget by 2.5 to get the movie's break even point. This is what the movie needs to make at the box office to break even after other costs and the cut that the theaters take is accounted for. By the usual rule of thumb, the movie fell short of breaking even by around $135 million.
IF they only made 115 million on a budget of 100 million they lost money:
Around 50% (57.5 million) goes to the theaters
$250 million to break even, minus 57.5 million = 192.5 million loss.