Ghostbusters: Afterlife | November 19 2021 | Sony | Delayed again

[Lucas]

Reviews are coming and some are really glowing.

[grim22]

Can't say I understand Sony's embargo strategy with this tbh. The reviews are good but not the overly glowing ones you would assume with this early a release. 69 on MC and 88 on RT with 7.5 average. The reviews are basically the type which sound amazing in tweets as opposed to full reviews. Could have just stuck to social embargo 

 

They could have achieved the same thing with an embargo 2 weeks before release.

[John Marston]

Sounds like The Force Awakens in the good and bad ways 

[Menor the Destroyer]

I don't see this opening higher than the 2016 version but who knows. Should have legs though. 

[Hatebox]

Negative review from AV Club: https://www.avclub.com/ghostbusters-afterlife-is-a-dispiriting-nostalgia-exer-1847831687

 

"If you’ve always wanted a Ghostbusters with maximum reverence and minimum comedy, this one’s for you!"

 

Sounds like they went full Stranger Things trend-chasing, which isn't necessarily bad for its box office chances.

[cookie]

I always thought it was weird how overly serious and reverent the trailers were. Like, it's Ghostbusters, not Force Awakens!

 

If that's what the movie is... okay, then, but still...

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

How much longer until we get a super serious, nostalgic sequel to other 80s comedies like Caddyshack and Stripes? 

[Krissykins]

Ghostbusters 97% certified fresh
Ghostbusters II 53%
Ghostbusters (2016) 74% certified fresh 
 

[filmlover]

19 hours ago, grim22 said:

Can't say I understand Sony's embargo strategy with this tbh. The reviews are good but not the overly glowing ones you would assume with this early a release. 69 on MC and 88 on RT with 7.5 average. The reviews are basically the type which sound amazing in tweets as opposed to full reviews. Could have just stuck to social embargo 

 

They could have achieved the same thing with an embargo 2 weeks before release.

It's bizarre how they've allowed reviews to drop this early (and on a Saturday when hardly anyone would notice too) but tbh I haven't heard a whole lot of real world chatter about this the whole time since it was announced so they're probably eager to create buzz of some sort. At least plenty of people were talking about the 2016 movie, even if it was for mostly silly reasons. Guess we're about to find out if this is about to join Terminator in the "IPs that are simply irrelevant to today's audience" column.

[DAJK]

If this is indeed very good, I’d say it can do something like 35/115. There’s really no competition for it until SpiderMan

[Ozymandias]

37 minutes ago, filmlover said:

 Guess we're about to find out if this is about to join Terminator in the "IPs that are simply irrelevant to today's audience" column.

 

Terminator burned out because its an extremely limited series(thanks to the whole idea of John Connor) with its main attraction being too old for the role after the second movie.  Of the 6 Terminator movies, 5 of them have the exact same story... X goes back in time to protect Y from Z.  The one time they actually did do something different they got a hack for it which scared off producers from doing anything different again.  Then that was followed up with what was probably the most stunning big budget studio release I've ever payed money for at a theater, Terminator: Genysis(I'm smart enough to avoid things like Jupiter Ascending).  And you know the franchise is dead when a terminator movie, Dark Fate, written by James Cameron, somehow ends up not as good as Terminator 3.

 

Ghostbusters isn't isn't really comparable to Terminator.  The idea of Ghostbusters is still viable, theres only been one real crack at it since the original with one sequel whereas the 2016 version felt more like a really bad SNL skit than an actual movie.  It is a bit surprising to me though that this appears to be more like a Spielberg/JJ Abrams/Stranger scifi type movie than a comedy though.

[John Marston]

yes the original two films were primarily comedy but they still took the ghosts/threats seriously and had a few genuinely creepy moments. They weren't full slapstick goofiness like the 2016 movie

[marveldcfox]

If this does only Free Guy or Jungle Cruise numbers, it will be considered a disappointment. Ghostbusters is an established franchise releasing in a period when movies are doing decently if decently reviewed. 

[Chicago]

4 hours ago, John Marston said:

yes the original two films were primarily comedy but they still took the ghosts/threats seriously and had a few genuinely creepy moments. They weren't full slapstick goofiness like the 2016 movie

Yeah when I think of the original Ghostbusters, I remember it being creepy. There was comedy in it but it's wasn't in your face to the point of not taking any of the ghosts seriously. I was a kid though I guess 

 

1 hour ago, marveldcfox said:

If this does only Free Guy or Jungle Cruise numbers, it will be considered a disappointment. Ghostbusters is an established franchise releasing in a period when movies are doing decently if decently reviewed. 

 

I feel it could be another Suicide Squad situation where the stench from the last film will hinder this

[Ronin46]

Is this really going to gross over 100 domestic? This was huge when I was a kid. The whole tone, catchy tune, humour, incredible chemistry with the leads and so on. It was lightning in a bottle. 

[filmlover]

9 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

It is a bit surprising to me though that this appears to be more like a Spielberg/JJ Abrams/Stranger scifi type movie than a comedy though.

It's easy to see why though when 1) it was the only cost-effective/low-risk way of justifying another attempt at reviving this IP knowing it will inevitably be banned in certain countries for the same exact reasons the '16 movie was (there were articles at the time about how China's anti-supernatural policy cost both that movie and the first Suicide Squad releases there at all) so they couldn't rely on overseas to make up for a potential domestic underperformance and 2) everyone who has been following the industry in recent years is aware the studio comedy (which all previous Ghostbusters movies are mainly classified as) is in danger of going the way of the dodo, while youthful 80s nostalgia is considered trendy now. It's obvious this is a much cheaper project than the previous movie between the small town setting and lack of highly-paid talent: that had big names like Wiig and McCarthy + SNL breakout McKinnon, while the only person this movie has that approaches A-list status is Rudd (and even he appears to be in the backseat to the kid actors for the most part so the chances he earned an MCU-level paycheck for this are slim).

[baumer]

I'm all for remakes and reimaginings of any film.  I'll even go see a JAWS remake once Spielberg is no longer of this Earth.  But maybe, and I'm just surmising here, but maybe this is a franchise that just can't be rebooted or remade with any kind of serious hopes of it hitting the zeitgeist the way the original did.  In 84, you had three of the biggest names in comedy starring in and writing the film.  The director was as hot as you can be as well.  They had done Caddyshack and Stripes and Meatballs.  Then you had Sigourney and more comedic genius with Rick Moranis.  Ghostbusters finished the year at number two just behind Beverly Hills Cop and I don't think anyone saw that coming.  I'm just not sure if people really care all that much now,.  I think this will be a "hit" but I don't even know at this point if it will surpass the (IMO) god-awful 2016 version.  

 

They're going to nostalgia by having Egon's grandkids be a focal point of the story and the living original members are coming back, but to me it just feels like his isn't really a film that many are going to get really excited about.  I'll see it of course, and I love that Reitman (Ivan) is returning to at least produce it and I hope it's good, I hope it's funny and I hope it has the same DNA as the original, but I'm not holding my breath.

[filmlover]

47 minutes ago, baumer said:

I'm all for remakes and reimaginings of any film.  I'll even go see a JAWS remake once Spielberg is no longer of this Earth.  But maybe, and I'm just surmising here, but maybe this is a franchise that just can't be rebooted or remade with any kind of serious hopes of it hitting the zeitgeist the way the original did.

I've always thought the answer as to why there was never a third one was right in front of everyone. Just look at the domestic totals between the first and the second.

 

Jun 8, 1984	Ghostbusters	$30,000,000	$13,612,564	$242,212,467	$295,211,811
Jun 16, 1989	Ghostbusters II		$29,472,894	$112,494,738	$215,500,000

 

 

Losing over half the audience was pretty alarming even for 1989 and would've been deemed an instant franchise killer today. Come to think of it, it probably paved the way for all the failed sequels to smash hit comedies (see: the hideous drop between Ted and Ted 2) we've seen over the decades since.

Edited October 11, 2021 by filmlover

[RRA]

To be fair GB2 (asides from mixed reactions) also came out in summer 1989 when everything not Batman (or Indiana Jones) felt that pinch.

[Firepower]

They should've done real Ghostbusters 3 with old team training new one like they were originally going to before 2016, it would've been a giant success worldwide. Dumb dumb Sony did everything they could to kill this IP, first 2016 reboot, now this. After I read that Wolfhard is playing Bill Murray's type of character, I have even less interest to see this.