Red Letter Media

[Flexo]

It still seems like such a weird direction to go in.

I always imagined a new Ghostbusters movie would be a passing of the torch thing, but not to a bunch of fucking 13 year olds.

Somebody like Paul Rudd is who I would imagine would be a new Ghostbuster, but he's pretty much playing the equivalent of Lewis in this.

He's like a strange mix of Lewis and the role Egon would have played had Harold been alive.

I was just thrilled the characters had nuance. Nobody was super perfect and flawless nor the butt of jokes. The boys, the girls, adults and kids both all had moments to shine and moments of folly.

It's like they were all... human.

 

[Newman's Lovechild]

The same people who okayed this movie are the same people cursing all the filthy neckbeards who trashed the last movie.

Speaking as a filthy neckbeard, better pandering to me than to all the wokity woke wokers on twitter, even if they curse behind their fake smiles.
But seriously, you guys expect some heartfelt work-of-art blockbuster out of Hollywood? Jason Reitmans public gushing was more heart than was expected.

It's a step in the right direction, at least.

 

[Saul Goodman Fan]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=nMtrjNPcjR0
The boys dun called it again

I wonder what thoughts are going through Jay’s head every time Mike goes on a tangent explaining what his take on the movie would be.

 

[Rotollo 2]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=nMtrjNPcjR0
The boys dun called it again

Yeah this was the predictable outcome for their review, the gang is abit tired of the soft reboot shit and have been since episode 9, still gonna wait to watch the thing to form my own opinion but I did find their insight interesting
I think Mike had some good ideas in his fantasy pitch (Venkman's american psycho and trashing the business, the weird mining company shit instead of gozer, having egon go full schizo, ect.) were interesting but him wanting the family to be white trash druggies was abit try hard.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Yeah this was the predictable outcome for their review, the gang is abit tired of the soft reboot shit and have been since episode 9, still gonna wait to watch the thing to form my own opinion but I did find their insight interesting
I think Mike had some good ideas in his fantasy pitch (Venkman's american psycho and trashing the business, the weird mining company shit instead of gozer, having egon go full schizo, ect.) were interesting but him wanting the family to be white trash druggies was abit try hard.

The fatal flaw is the reliance on the original cast, moreso than in the Sequel trilogy. What people love about the original movie was never proton packs, Slimer, or the Pillsbury Doughboy; it was the comedians cracking good jokes. People don't even want the characters really, they want the actors specifically. This problem is only exasperated in current year where no one is allowed to be funny. As a result, no one can fill that comedic void.

Which is why I've said that Ghostbusters was never meant to be a franchise.

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Will Sigourney Weaver only agree to appear in these if she only has to do a 30 second cameo at the end of the movie?

Cause it's happened twice in a row now.

 

[Flexo]

Which is why I've said that Ghostbusters was never meant to be a franchise.

The cartoon complicates that theory.

I think the original movie was such a lightning in a bottle in that so many can like it for a diverse range of aspects. And every subsequent effort to do more with it has the problem of picking one of those aspects and not the others so you one section of fans liking what is done while other sections do not.

 

[stuffandthings]

But it does make me frustrated and a little angry because I feel like these guys live in a bit of a bubble, I don't think they realize just how bleak the modern situation really is, I mean we're like by the day on the verge of a fucking race war or something, for years we've had communists trampling all over our culture in some of bizarre Maoist revolution and here's a movie treating an old property with respect, that alone wins a lot of favor from me.

I have a homework assignment for you. I want you to listen to Rush Limbaugh from the 90's. Read the Joseph McCarthy hearings. Read about the Palmer raids from the 20's. Just, pick up a newspaper from 100 years ago, and read it front to back. There has literally never been a decade where the 'modern situation' didn't feel bleak to a large portion of the population, where revolutionary young people weren't sperging out about 'society,' where racial and cultural tensions weren't simmering, and where people weren't arguing non-stop about it. They just didn't have the internet to do it on.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

The cartoon complicates that theory.

I think the original movie was such a lightning in a bottle in that so many can like it for a diverse range of aspects. And every subsequent effort to do more with it has the problem of picking one of those aspects and not the others so you one section of fans liking what is done while other sections do not.

No one, not even RLM, talk about the cartoon. Like the MiB cartoon made by the same company, it's been forgotten by pop culture.

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

If the original Ghostbusters are just gonna come in at the last minute and completely steal the spotlight from the new characters, why didn't they just have the old Ghostbusters be the main characters in the first place?

Does Sony just not want to make a blockbuster movie starring some crusty old guys? Is it too much trouble to try and wrangle Bill Murray into doing what you want him to do?

 

[Flexo]

No one, not even RLM, talk about the cartoon. Like the MiB cartoon made by the same company, it's been forgotten by pop culture.

You mean no one YOU pay attention to talk about it. There are plenty out there beyond your awareness.

Extreme Ghostbusters: Darkness at Noon 1

Animation Reviews

sfdebris.com

Heck the official episodes on the YouTube Ghostbusters channel have views in the million and hundreds of thousands on them.

If the original Ghostbusters are just gonna come in at the last minute and completely steal the spotlight from the new characters, why didn't they just have the old Ghostbusters be the main characters in the first place?

Does Sony just not want to make a blockbuster movie starring some crusty old guys? Is it too much trouble to try and wrangle Bill Murray into doing what you want him to do?

Eh... depends on definition of "steal the spotlight." Both grandkids contribute to the effort, the old guys get smacked around again, and even the mom gets to throw the game-winning lever.

 

[Mola Ram]

The cartoon complicates that theory.

I think the original movie was such a lightning in a bottle in that so many can like it for a diverse range of aspects. And every subsequent effort to do more with it has the problem of picking one of those aspects and not the others so you one section of fans liking what is done while other sections do not.

I think the cartoon was lightning in a bottle as well. For whatever reason, the suits weren't paying too much attention, and we got this nearly adult cartoon with good writing, genuinely creepy atmosphere, and sly humor all in one package. ("So this is Hell. I've been told to come here often.") Then someone woke up and they kiddified it into just another toy commercial. The good stuff lasted, what, a season and a half? Maybe if you got J. Michael Strazcynski back to write it again, but even JMS isn't JMS anymore.

(Caveat: I've never watched Extreme; just the original cartoon into the seasons where it got dumbed down.)

 

[Mongo0o]

And I don't think BIll Murray gives a fuck at all about this movie.

He probably only agreed to be in it because he feels guilty about falling out with Harold Ramis for so long.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Which is why I've said that Ghostbusters was never meant to be a franchise.

On the contrary, I think Ghostbusters should have been the James Bond of comedy, I really do think there was/is potential for a lot of movies, the central premise is strong enough for that.

A Ghostbusters 2 should have followed in 1986 or 1987, a Ghostbusters 3 in 1989, 1990 or 1991, a Ghostbusters 4 in 1994 or 1995 and then a final movie or a final movie starring the original cast in 1999 and then maybe a passing of the torch to a new generation.

The Ghostbusters 2 we got kind of screwed things up by having them go out of business and have to get back into it, James Bond doesn't have to re-earn his license to kill for every movie, it should have started with the baseline of them just being Ghostbusters, just like Bond is always part of MI6, maybe the overarching plotline could be the romances between Peter and Dana and Egon and Janine, but just have them bust ghosts and face a new central threat for each new movie.

Or at least they should have made a proper trilogy with a proper ending ala Back To The Future.

On a side note, there should have been a Star Wars sequel trilogy in the late 80s and early 90s and a fourth Indiana Jones in the 90s.

I have a homework assignment for you. I want you to listen to Rush Limbaugh from the 90's. Read the Joseph McCarthy hearings. Read about the Palmer raids from the 20's. Just, pick up a newspaper from 100 years ago, and read it front to back. There has literally never been a decade where the 'modern situation' didn't feel bleak to a large portion of the population, where revolutionary young people weren't sperging out about 'society,' where racial and cultural tensions weren't simmering, and where people weren't arguing non-stop about it. They just didn't have the internet to do it on.

The last several years take the cake though, all the shit that has been boiling under the surface of society for decades is starting to come to a head thanks to social media radically changing the game.

Occasionally shit really does boil over into something like the civil war, WW1, WW2, it feels like we're on the verge of a major boil over again.

If the original Ghostbusters are just gonna come in at the last minute and completely steal the spotlight from the new characters, why didn't they just have the old Ghostbusters be the main characters in the first place?

Does Sony just not want to make a blockbuster movie starring some crusty old guys? Is it too much trouble to try and wrangle Bill Murray into doing what you want him to do?

They're old, couldn't do stunts and physical comedy for most of the movie.

I'm assuming for the next movie they're just going to be advisors to a new team.

When the movie was first announced I was hoping it was going to star them, I was a bit disappointed when I learned that wasn't going to be the case.

 

[Sexual Chocolate]

On the contrary, I think Ghostbusters should have been the James Bond of comedy

James Bond was already played out by the end of the 60's tho, it's the original zombie franchise that ran out of creative juice before most people were born. Also, I can't think of many/any comedy franchises that are good.

If the premise was that strong, you'd expect that at least one of the three sequels/remakes/reboots/whatever would've been good, or that somebody would steal the concept and run with their own Haintstoppers franchise. But neither of those things came to pass, so maybe the central premise of Ghostbusters was successfully explored by the end of the 1984 movie.

In retrospect, it's almost admirable how money-grubbing movie moguls mostly resisted the temptation to make infinity sequels in the 80's. Big, dumb action movies (Rambo, Rocky), cheap, tacky horror (Nightmare, Jason) and lowbrow comedy (National Lampoon) got multiple sequels, but they were the exceptions. If 80's Hollywood had the same business model as today they'd have tried to make a Beetlejuice or an E.T. cinematic universe, and it would suck.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

On the contrary, I think Ghostbusters should have been the James Bond of comedy, I really do think there was/is potential for a lot of movies, the central premise is strong enough for that.

A Ghostbusters 2 should have followed in 1986 or 1987, a Ghostbusters 3 in 1989, 1990 or 1991, a Ghostbusters 4 in 1994 or 1995 and then a final movie or a final movie starring the original cast in 1999 and then maybe a passing of the torch to a new generation.

The Ghostbusters 2 we got kind of screwed things up by having them go out of business and have to get back into it, James Bond doesn't have to re-earn his license to kill for every movie, it should have started with the baseline of them just being Ghostbusters, just like Bond is always part of MI6, maybe the overarching plotline could be the romances between Peter and Dana and Egon and Janine, but just have them bust ghosts and face a new central threat for each new movie.

Or at least they should have made a proper trilogy with a proper ending ala Back To The Future.

On a side note, there should have been a Star Wars sequel trilogy in the late 80s and early 90s and a fourth Indiana Jones in the 90s.


The last several years take the cake though, all the shit that has been boiling under the surface of society for decades is starting to come to a head thanks to social media radically changing the game.

Occasionally shit really does boil over into something like the civil war, WW1, WW2, it feels like we're on the verge of a major boil over again.


They're old, couldn't do stunts and physical comedy for most of the movie.

I'm assuming for the next movie they're just going to be advisors to a new team.

When the movie was first announced I was hoping it was going to star them, I was a bit disappointed when I learned that wasn't going to be the case.

Ghostbusters is too heavily invested in Peter Venkman, Ray Stanz, Egon Spengler, and Winston Zedmore. Which Mike then proves by pitching an idea that involves some of these characters and Afterlife proves by being TFA. If Ghostbusters doesn't have at least one of these characters, it doesn't work and we're rapidly moving to the point where none of these characters will be available outside of some ghoulish CGI. Unlike James Bond, these roles can't be recast either because the only people allowed to be comedians are people that are terrible at comedy.

 

[Sexual Chocolate]

These guys are so incredibly, bitterly cynical lmao.

Hey man, you try being a 40something alcoholic nerd who lives in Wisconsin.

 

[Dom Cruise]

I think Mike would be really interested to watch a documentary called Ghostheads, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4976984/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

It's about hardcore fans of Ghostbusters in the days leading up to the 2016 movie, some of it is interesting, but some of it is pretty cringey, there's one couple interviewed where the young woman says that she used to be a an alcoholic and depressed and now Ghostbusters "gives her a reason to live", I mean I love Ghostbusters a lot too, but that's a bit sad.

People who are super emotionally invested in pop culture stuff is definitely one thing the RLM guys don't understand, again, I laughed really hard at Mike reading Tweets over a clip of Ray's O face.

James Bond was already played out by the end of the 60's tho, it's the original zombie franchise that ran out of creative juice before most people were born. Also, I can't think of many/any comedy franchises that are good.

Aren't some of the 70s one well liked though?

The 80s ones are at least entertaining.

If the premise was that strong, you'd expect that at least one of the three sequels/remakes/reboots/whatever would've been good, or that somebody would steal the concept and run with their own Haintstoppers franchise. But neither of those things came to pass, so maybe the central premise of Ghostbusters was successfully explored by the end of the 1984 movie.

but imo II is good, Afterlife is good and especially the video game is good.

In retrospect, it's almost admirable how money-grubbing movie moguls mostly resisted the temptation to make infinity sequels in the 80's. Big, dumb action movies (Rambo, Rocky), cheap, tacky horror (Nightmare, Jason) and lowbrow comedy (National Lampoon) got multiple sequels, but they were the exceptions. If 80's Hollywood had the same business model as today they'd have tried to make a Beetlejuice or an E.T. cinematic universe, and it would suck.

It is, but the irony is it only caused us to miss out on more awesome movies, late 80s/early 90s Star Wars would have been great, a 90s Indiana Jones would have been great.

Yes, we dodged a few bullets like an E.T. sequel, but there was a lot of missed opportunities, the 80s and early 90s was such an absurdly great time for movie making that I can't help but wish there was more.

Ghostbusters is too heavily invested in Peter Venkman, Ray Stanz, Egon Spengler, and Winston Zedmore. Which Mike then proves by pitching an idea that involves some of these characters and Afterlife proves by being TFA. If Ghostbusters doesn't have at least one of these characters, it doesn't work and we're rapidly moving to the point where none of these characters will be available outside of some ghoulish CGI. Unlike James Bond, these roles can't be recast either because the only people allowed to be comedians are people that are terrible at comedy.

You're right, I should have clarified that it was both the premise and the characters that I feel could have lent itself to a lot more movies, those original characters are just so likable and fun to spend time with that it's a shame we didn't get to see them on more adventures.

However I do also think the premise alone is strong enough that it can work with new characters and I think Afterlife proves it, I liked Phoebe and Podcast, Trevor and Lucky were a bit bland but not bad, this is a step in the right direction.

Hey man, you try being a 40something alcoholic nerd who lives in Wisconsin.

Like I said, I'm not mad at them, I can sympathize.

I think it's a shame the movie didn't work more for them, but it's not fun times we live and that can make it hard to lose yourself in a movie.

 

[Rotollo 2]

Hey man, you try being a 40something alcoholic nerd who lives in Wisconsin.

View attachment 2742830

Worse, try making Space Cop

 

[Flexo]

but imo II is good, Afterlife is good and especially the video game is good.

The Video Game is definitely the best #3. If you have played it, you probably don't need to see Afterlife (though it's a decent #4 and can work mostly with the game in continuity - especially if you like to imagine Paul Rudd as the Rookie).

Both sequels are interesting as a comparison to the original. To butcher a metaphor, #2 is like taking everything off the frame of a house, and then building a new house on that frame, while #3 is taking everything about the house (bricks, siding, etc) and building all of it onto a new frame.

#2 is superficially different but still has the same core structure and bones to the story as the first one. #3 has a lot of superficial overlap to the first movie, but has a different core and bones to its story.

(excluding the broad general outlines and 3-act story structure that 99% of ALL movies have in common, you autists)

However I do also think the premise alone is strong enough that it can work with new characters and I think Afterlife proves it, I liked Phoebe and Podcast, Trevor and Lucky were a bit bland but not bad, this is a step in the right direction.

I'm rather impressed Podcast seems to have been an actual likeable comic relief and I love the payoff to one of his jokes at the end.

Yes the brother is very "cliche" teen but they only have so much time to flesh stuff out. I was just thrilled they made him competent at being a mechanic and driver instead of Phoebe being omni-Rey. I like when team movies have everybody on the team actually be useful instead of some of them being deadweight.

Yeah I would have probably polished the script a bit more - done more with Paul Rudd as the mentor figure - but the film overall is SO MUCH BETTER than Girlbusters or the SW sequels.

I don't even mean as a sequel, I mean as a pure story period it is competent.

And yes I am aware of how sad it is we are living in a time where basic storytelling competence has to be praised instead of taken for granted as a given.