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

[AJG]

Just now, filmlover said:

Budget of $75M according to Variety.

 

Box Office: 'Ghostbusters: Afterlife,' 'King Richard' Opening Estimate - Variety

 

The lat one cost $144m

[wildphantom]

Good post about nostalgia above. 
 

who wants a Ghostbusters without buckets of nostalgia? This idea that it should go off in new directions is so misjudged in my opinion. 
 

if this film is made with the amblin era 80’s feel, with a boatload of nostalgia - I say bring it*
 

*I reserve the right to complain and be a hypocrite about this if I end up feeling the opposite post-screening. Lol. 

[filmlover]

Just now, AJG said:

 

The lat one cost $144m

That movie had a slew of big names involved that certainly drove the price up (Feig, McCarthy, Wiig, Hemsworth, McKinnon).

 

This movie has a small town setting instead of NYC, the director (in addition to the "family legacy" angle) was likely very affordable after a decade of complete nonstarters, and the only person in the cast who would command a high salary of any kind is the current Sexiest Man Alive (who likely didn't receive a Marvel-sized paycheck for what's clearly a supporting role). They would've been foolish to spend that kind of money on this IP again, especially knowing this will inevitably be banned in places like China for the same reasons the '16 movie was and the overseas drawing power of this particular brand being debatable in general.

[von Kenni]

7 minutes ago, wildphantom said:

Good post about nostalgia above. 
 

who wants a Ghostbusters without buckets of nostalgia? This idea that it should go off in new directions is so misjudged in my opinion. 
 

if this film is made with the amblin era 80’s feel, with a boatload of nostalgia - I say bring it*
 

*I reserve the right to complain and be a hypocrite about this if I end up feeling the opposite post-screening. Lol. 

Hear, hear. I'm on the nostalgia train and I don't get the modern times vilifying it by default (or maybe do but don't want to go into that discussion).

 

Ultimately it needs to be a good story with good characters and developments on both accounts. Nostalgia is icing on the cake and if it wants to be a bridging film between the fans of OG and making new fans for the future, then it should work both ways: Easter eggs and references for OG fans but not getting away for the enjoyment of newbies, i.e. standing on its own feet.

 

If you walk in the movies expecting that everything is explained to you, then good luck with movies generally.

[von Kenni]

32 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Budget of $75M according to Variety.

 

Box Office: 'Ghostbusters: Afterlife,' 'King Richard' Opening Estimate - Variety

Love the size of that budget. It has a good shot to turn some profit, maybe a lot. However, what matters most is that it needs to be good!

 

I guess I need to refresh my memory and watch the G2 this weekend before I see this one. OG last weekend was a blast.

 

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, von Kenni said:

Hear, hear. I'm on the nostalgia train and I don't get the modern times vilifying it by default (or maybe do but don't want to go into that discussion).

 

Ultimately it needs to be a good story with good characters and developments on both accounts. Nostalgia is icing on the cake and if it wants to be a bridging film between the fans of OG and making new fans for the future, then it should work both ways: Easter eggs and references for OG fans but not getting away for the enjoyment of newbies, i.e. standing on its own feet.

 

If you walk in the movies expecting that everything is explained to you, then good luck with movies generally.

The original had become such a staple on TV I think most potential customers have seen it. Of course a few have'nt but I think being unfamiliar with the original is not a major concern for the studio.

[AJG]

4 hours ago, dudalb said:

The original had become such a staple on TV I think most potential customers have seen it. Of course a few have'nt but I think being unfamiliar with the original is not a major concern for the studio.

You think people under 13 watch TV like that still? The time where kids knew old movies because of 24/7 programming is over.

[grim22]

9 hours ago, filmlover said:

That movie had a slew of big names involved that certainly drove the price up (Feig, McCarthy, Wiig, Hemsworth, McKinnon).

 

This movie has a small town setting instead of NYC, the director (in addition to the "family legacy" angle) was likely very affordable after a decade of complete nonstarters, and the only person in the cast who would command a high salary of any kind is the current Sexiest Man Alive (who likely didn't receive a Marvel-sized paycheck for what's clearly a supporting role). They would've been foolish to spend that kind of money on this IP again, especially knowing this will inevitably be banned in places like China for the same reasons the '16 movie was and the overseas drawing power of this particular brand being debatable in general.

The thing i still don't get about GB2016 is that they paid Feig, McCarthy and Wiig a boatload of money, and did not build in any sequel clauses for all 3 of them. You would think a clause for at least one sequel would have been a given, but the lack of a contract meant that the budget for any follow-up would have been even higher.

[Macleod]

17 hours ago, CenterMeOnSam said:

I love critics, but generally the main thing driving most negative reviews of this movie are folks who aren't fans of "nostalgia" driven stories. That's perfectly their right, but personally, I don't understand how nostalgia has become a dirty word. 

 

I'm a professor of theatre and I can tell you the concept of nostalgia has been a major driver of entertainment going back to the Greeks. I think critics like to use it to claim something is "a retread" or "not original," but the idea of "originality" being integral to successful populist entertainment is a rather new concept. Shakespeare made a career of retreads, remakes, and nostalgia.

 

So, if their major issue is that it's too nostalgic for its own good, that doesn't worry me at all.

 

Story, story, story, characters, characters, characters.  Shakespeare may have retread, but he (or whoever wrote his stuff) knew how to orchestrate a fascinating story.  The nostalgia doesn't become meaningful unless it works as an inspiring story on its own.  But thank you for the historical reminder.

 

6 hours ago, AJG said:

You think people under 13 watch TV like that still? The time where kids knew old movies because of 24/7 programming is over.

Agreed.  During the last few years, I ask students "What have you watched recently?" and "Have you seen such-and-such iconic film?" that previously would be common knowledge through TV/syndication saturation... your Ghostbusters, your Wizard of Oz, your Ten Commandments... and I get mostly blank stares.  One person in the room is pre-schooled, if I'm lucky...usually by a parent who was already a movie fan.  

Edited November 18, 2021 by Macleod

[Krissykins]

16 hours ago, filmlover said:

Budget of $75M according to Variety.

 

Box Office: 'Ghostbusters: Afterlife,' 'King Richard' Opening Estimate - Variety

Much more sensible. It’s a shame the last film cost so much ($144m), Sony really shot themselves in the foot with that budget unfortunately. 
 

This one could make less than the last and with worse reviews and still get a sequel. 

[YM!]

Tomorrow. I’m so ready for the nostalgia to overtake me, when I’m done with college for the day, I’m heading straight over to witness it.

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Yes, I’m doing the same Pokémon bit. Wouldn’t be BOT unless we took a bit and ran it into the ground and continue with it until the humor is gone.

 

 

[SchumacherFTW]

2 minutes ago, YourMother said:

Tomorrow. I’m so ready for the nostalgia to overtake me, when I’m done with college for the day, I’m heading straight over to witness it.

 

  Hide contents

 

  Hide contents

Yes, I’m doing the same Pokémon bit. Wouldn’t be BOT unless we took a bit and ran it into the ground and continue with it until the humor is gone.

 

 

Much better choice

[Merkel]

21 hours ago, CenterMeOnSam said:

 

I love critics, but generally the main thing driving most negative reviews of this movie are folks who aren't fans of "nostalgia" driven stories. That's perfectly their right, but personally, I don't understand how nostalgia has become a dirty word. 

 

I'm a professor of theatre and I can tell you the concept of nostalgia has been a major driver of entertainment going back to the Greeks. I think critics like to use it to claim something is "a retread" or "not original," but the idea of "originality" being integral to successful populist entertainment is a rather new concept. Shakespeare made a career of retreads, remakes, and nostalgia.

 

So, if their major issue is that it's too nostalgic for its own good, that doesn't worry me at all.

 

The problem here it's not so much using nostalgia as a trope or a gimmick. It is indeed a very strong emotion and brilliant movies have been made using nostalgia as its main lense, mostly in movies dealing with some sort of childhood reminiscence. The problem isn't either the story potentially being a retread or a remake. 

 

 The problem, in my view, lies somewhere else. It's when you have to resort to the iconography of previous works to do all the heavy lifting, to create goodwill with the audience using little signposts that remind them of how much they enjoyed other works. I haven't seen the new Ghostbusters yet, but from a clip alone you already get a really egregious example of this: when Rudd's character tries to get the Ghost trap working. And all the characters exhibit a sort of a reverence for that thing that was never, ever, part of the original films. All the hardware associated with ghostbusting was never treated as anything other than the tools of the trade. They never had big, reveal shots, with rousing music. They were just there, they were never assumed to be cool or awesome. But of course, kids that grew up watching those movies wanted to have those toys. They looked awesome. And thus, they become iconic. But only outside of the movies. But when you see that fanboy, real world, reverence seeping into the movie, I take it as a very bad sign.  Treating something as iconic when it was only ever iconic outside the movie universe.

 

And seeing glimpses of terror dogs, stay puft marshmallow men, Ecto 1 being revealed like some sort of Batmobile only further ciments this impression.

 

Taking your Shakespeare example, would be akin to having Hamlet pop up in another play and make some bad pun with "To be, or not to be, that is the question", or having the dagger that killed Caesar pop up in Antony and Cleopatra.

 

That is the problem with these nostalgia driven projects. It's not the nostalgia itselft. It's using what other movies did right to save you work and give you a quick dopamine rush of recognition that will lead nowhere and have no lasting power   

Edited November 18, 2021 by Merkel

[von Kenni]

9 minutes ago, Merkel said:

 

The problem here it's not so much using nostalgia as a trope or a gimmick. It is indeed a very strong emotion and brilliant movies have been made using nostalgia as its main lense, mostly in movies dealing with some sort of childhood reminiscence. The problem isn't either the story potentially being a retread or a remake. 

 

 The problem, in my view, lies somewhere else. It's when you have to resort to the iconography of previous works to do all the heavy lifting, to create goodwill with the audience using little signposts that remind them of how much they enjoyed other works. I haven't seen the new Ghostbusters yet, but from a clip alone you already get a really egregious example of this: when Rudd's character tries to get the Ghost trap working. And all the characters exhibit a sort of a reverence for that thing that was never, ever, part of the original films. All the hardware associated with ghostbusting was never treated as anything other than the tools of the trade. But of course, kids that grew up watching those movies wanted to have those toys. They looked awesome. And thus, they become iconic. But only outside of the movies. But when you see that fanboy, real world, reverence seeping into the movie, I take it as a very bad sign.  Treating something as iconic when it was only ever iconic outside the movie universe.

 

And seeing glimpses of terror dogs, stay puft marshmallow men, Ecto 1 being revealed like some sort of Batmobile only further ciments this impression.

 

Taking your Shakespeare example, would be akin to having Hamlet pop up in another play and make some bad pun with "To be, or not to be, that is the question", or having the dagger that killed Caesar pop up in Antony and Cleopatra.

 

That is the problem with these nostalgia driven projects. It's not the nostalgia itselft. It's using what other movies did right to save you work and give you a quick dopamine rush of recognition that will lead nowhere and have no lasting power   

I hear you, but again, if the story and characters are there that's all icing on the cake. If the story and characters are not there, then it's an empty shell wrapped in cheap manipulation. The former would be persuasion that gives you something of lasting value as the latter would manipulate you into buying an empty shell.

 

We'll soon see which it is after we see the movie itself.

[von Kenni]

48 minutes ago, YourMother said:

Tomorrow. I’m so ready for the nostalgia to overtake me, when I’m done with college for the day, I’m heading straight over to witness it.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Yes, I’m doing the same Pokémon bit. Wouldn’t be BOT unless we took a bit and ran it into the ground and continue with it until the humor is gone.

 

 

 

48 minutes ago, SchumacherFTW said:

Much better choice

 

There's no escape...

 

 

[AJG]

3 hours ago, Macleod said:

Agreed.  During the last few years, I ask students "What have you watched recently?" and "Have you seen such-and-such iconic film?" that previously would be common knowledge through TV/syndication saturation... your Ghostbusters, your Wizard of Oz, your Ten Commandments... and I get mostly blank stares.  One person in the room is pre-schooled, if I'm lucky...usually by a parent who was already a movie fan.  

 

Kids today also don't know about turning on the TV, catching a movie 30 minutes through, sitting through the rest of it, and only knowing the title of the film once the announcer tells you during the credits.

Watching an old movie completely blind - with no knowledge of what you're watching is a great way to find new movies you might enjoy. But these kids today have too much choice.

[CenterMeOnSam]

2 hours ago, Merkel said:

 

The problem here it's not so much using nostalgia as a trope or a gimmick. It is indeed a very strong emotion and brilliant movies have been made using nostalgia as its main lense, mostly in movies dealing with some sort of childhood reminiscence. The problem isn't either the story potentially being a retread or a remake. 

 

 The problem, in my view, lies somewhere else. It's when you have to resort to the iconography of previous works to do all the heavy lifting, to create goodwill with the audience using little signposts that remind them of how much they enjoyed other works. I haven't seen the new Ghostbusters yet, but from a clip alone you already get a really egregious example of this: when Rudd's character tries to get the Ghost trap working. And all the characters exhibit a sort of a reverence for that thing that was never, ever, part of the original films. All the hardware associated with ghostbusting was never treated as anything other than the tools of the trade. They never had big, reveal shots, with rousing music. They were just there, they were never assumed to be cool or awesome. But of course, kids that grew up watching those movies wanted to have those toys. They looked awesome. And thus, they become iconic. But only outside of the movies. But when you see that fanboy, real world, reverence seeping into the movie, I take it as a very bad sign.  Treating something as iconic when it was only ever iconic outside the movie universe.

 

And seeing glimpses of terror dogs, stay puft marshmallow men, Ecto 1 being revealed like some sort of Batmobile only further ciments this impression.

 

Taking your Shakespeare example, would be akin to having Hamlet pop up in another play and make some bad pun with "To be, or not to be, that is the question", or having the dagger that killed Caesar pop up in Antony and Cleopatra.

 

That is the problem with these nostalgia driven projects. It's not the nostalgia itselft. It's using what other movies did right to save you work and give you a quick dopamine rush of recognition that will lead nowhere and have no lasting power   

 

I mean, but that's how nostalgia works. Something that isn't "iconic" originally becomes "iconic" after shared experiences and memories grow over time. 

 

And, technically, these things DID happen in Shakespeare (sorry, I teach Shakespeare daily )

 

For instance, the Histories do this quite frequently. Characters reintroduced, callbacks from previous events, even callbacks that happen in verse with similar language. An egregious example is Falstaff (made a crowd favorite in Henry IV) is reintroduced in Merry Wives of Windsor. So, he's not Hamlet, but he definitely pops out in the same way you mention and the audience went crazy. It was like an Elizabethan version of Leo pointing at the television screen. And while the dagger isn't the came in Caesar and Antony... Antony HIMSELF pops out in both plays. 

 

Another instance is the use of Verona as a shared location, both referenced and actual. 

 

There's a lot there, but I won't bore you with more, but my point remains the same: this is nothing new and its weird that there has been a recent critical attack on films that use nostalgia as a foundation. 

[Macleod]

1 hour ago, CenterMeOnSam said:

There's a lot there, but I won't bore you with more, but my point remains the same: this is nothing new and its weird that there has been a recent critical attack on films that use nostalgia as a foundation. 

 

Indeed, some have argued that there are 3-5 great stories, everything else just revisits them in different ways.  But I think a lot of the critique against current nostalgia-driven projects is due to the obviousness of corporate-synergistic mandates coming through the seams of the product, rather than feeling organic to the visual storytelling medium, itself.  Film can and should be judged differently because it involves a multiplicity of visual elements to show and tell its story different to that of literature.  (That's what I'm fundamentalist about in my field/classes, equal respect and I'll stop here, as well!)  😉  

[CenterMeOnSam]

9 minutes ago, Macleod said:

 

Indeed, some have argued that there are 3-5 great stories, everything else just revisits them in different ways.  But I think a lot of the critique against current nostalgia-driven projects is due to the obviousness of corporate-synergistic mandates coming through the seams of the product, rather than feeling organic to the visual storytelling medium, itself.  Film can and should be judged differently because it involves a multiplicity of visual elements to show and tell its story different to that of literature.  (That's what I'm fundamentalist about in my field/classes, equal respect and I'll stop here, as well!)  😉  

 

Indeed! Definitely a good point.

 

Oddly enough, producers of Shakespeare's days WERE often viewed as I think many are viewing major corporate characters now. Many fellow playwrights of the time felt Shakespeare's attention to the lower class and, often, acquiescence, to what would sell tickets, made him a bit of a sham. Shakespeare had this great ability to take familiar stories and use them to actually bring in audiences and rally them around his language. 

 

I think another poster said it really well. Nostalgia is perfectly acceptable if it's used correctly. 

[Menor the Destroyer]

Personally I like nostalgia when it adds to something that is good already. I don't like it when it's used as a substitute for story. But if the movie is both fun and entertaining on its own and gives some nostalgia, what's the problem? 

 

4 hours ago, AJG said:

 

Kids today also don't know about turning on the TV, catching a movie 30 minutes through, sitting through the rest of it, and only knowing the title of the film once the announcer tells you during the credits.

Watching an old movie completely blind - with no knowledge of what you're watching is a great way to find new movies you might enjoy. But these kids today have too much choice.

You can do the same thing by just picking random movies on streaming.