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

[baumer]

9 hours ago, filmlover said:

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.

 

But one thing you are forgetting is that the sequel set the opening weekend record at the time (until Batman came out a few weeks later).  There was a huge audience for GB2, it's just the movie itself couldn't catch lightning in a bottle twice.  

[John Marston]

Just now, baumer said:

 

But one thing you are forgetting is that the sequel set the opening weekend record at the time (until Batman came out a few weeks later).  There was a huge audience for GB2, it's just the movie itself couldn't catch lightning in a bottle twice.  

 

Batman was just one week after so that probably hurt GB2

[John Marston]

10 hours ago, filmlover said:

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.

 

 

still think they would have made another back in the late 90s or early 2000s if it weren’t for Bill Murray’s reluctance 

[baumer]

Just now, John Marston said:

 

Batman was just one week after so that probably hurt GB2

 

That was a crazy summer for setting opening weekend records.  Temple of Doom, then Ghostbusters and then Batman all set opening weekend records.  

[Krissykins]

They don’t often give 1 star reviews, but wow, whichever critic it was absolutely despised it. 

[Hatebox]

^ Was just about to post that. "Jason Reitman takes over his father’s franchise and immediately tanks it with a tonally misjudged blend of pandering fan service and bizarrely played-straight spectacle"

 

Looks like you either buy into the lack of comedy or you don't.

[Eric the Ape]

 

[Last Man Standing]

5 hours ago, Krissykins said:

They don’t often give 1 star reviews, but wow, whichever critic it was absolutely despised it. 

Wow, that title isn't playing.

[lilmac]

Ghostbusters was the first film I remember seeing in a theater (drive through). Good memories. 

[lilmac]

7 hours ago, baumer said:

 

That was a crazy summer for setting opening weekend records.  Temple of Doom, then Ghostbusters and then Batman all set opening weekend records.  

1989? Batman? You mean Last Crusade? 

Edited October 11, 2021 by lilmac

[baumer]

3 hours ago, lilmac said:

1989? Batman? You mean Last Crusade? 

 

Yes, sorry.  Last Crusade.

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

62 on Metacritic. 83 on Rotten Tomatoes and 7.1 average.

 

Kinda yikes 

[Nikostar]

Lol this is getting the same kind of reviews as the 2016 version.

[SpiderByte]

So they made a Ghostbusters sequel that is...just not a comedy? And they cast Paul Rudd in it?

[TheDude391]

I with the filmmakers rewatched the original film before making this. Mythologizing the movie where Dan Aykroyd gets a blowjob from a ghost is silly.

[WittyUsername]

Ghostbusters is basically the closest thing Sony has to their own Star Wars, so I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that they would try to make it more than just a comedy, especially after the 2016 version, but the franchise isn’t exactly something that warrants any kind of grandiose or mythos.

[sabrecmc]

Yikes, that was a rough review.  It must just be all but impossible to recapture what made the first one great.

[dudalb]

19 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

Ghostbusters is basically the closest thing Sony has to their own Star Wars, so I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that they would try to make it more than just a comedy, especially after the 2016 version, but the franchise isn’t exactly something that warrants any kind of grandiose or mythos.

Not really. if it was their Star wars, they would not have put it on ice for  25 years.

But if they are trying to actually go serious with it in the upcoming movie, that is a huge, huge, mistake.

[Menor the Destroyer]

These seem a bit low for reviews this far out. We'll see whether it can avoid the usual drop closer to release. 

[dudalb]

On 10/10/2021 at 9:59 AM, 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

The genius of the first film  was it played the Supernatual menace pretty  straight..at times right out of H P Lovecraft....and let the comedy arise from the reactions of the charecters to the menace. Even the Sta Puft monsters was a result of Ackroyds imagination.

Second film tried the same, but did not turn out too well. It tried to retread too many jokes from the first, and  they simply did not work as well the second time.

Less said about the third the better.

And althought I got excited after about the new one after the trailer, getting more and more pessimistic from what I am reading about it.