Ghostbusters: Afterlife

PC777 said:
People didn't like the 2016 Ghostbusters because it was so obviously designed to wantonly change the very fundamentals of a beloved movie franchise that was still fresh in many viewers' hearts and minds.

No one really cared it was all women, what people cared about it was so obviously forced together by numbers with a fat character and a loud black one who was way more regressive a portrayal than the understated and just plain believable character of Winston Zedmore from 1984.

Winston Zedmore from 1984 was a great character that didn't rely on any stereotypes or making any stupid jokes, he was a really great character who just so happened to be black and was one of my favourite characters as a 10 user old kid watching it. They did a better job of giving him a believable tone than they did with Leslie Jones 30 years later who seems to have been disrespectfully cast as fat, loud comic relief. He was a quiet, intelligent character who didn't speak much but when he did it really meant something.

Leslie Jone' character is an absolute disgrace compared to the refined, calm, cool and collected character of Winston Zedmore.

Most 'woke' movies are actually regressive as they stereotype and add characters purely to tick boxes and fill quotas.

'Woke' 2016 Ghostbusters was way more offensive it its portrayal of black people as being fat comic relief than the original one was.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree with you - in the 1984 film Winston is so token it’s painful. He barely has any lines or personality. I recall him stating he’s religious and that’s it. He has one ‘barely funny’ like in “that’s a big Twinkie”. He adds nothing to the film! Whereas his equivalent in the remake has a more flushed out backstory and IIRC the funniest line in the film (“yup - room full of nightmares”).

I sort of wonder whether you have watched completely different films to me. Go back and watch the original Ghostbusters and see whether your comment of Winston being a good character stands up.
 
Nitefly said:
He adds nothing to the film! Whereas his equivalent in the remake has a more flushed out backstory and IIRC the funniest line in the film (“yup - room full of nightmares”).
Click to expand...

I agree to this regarding Jones character, the trailers made her look obnoxious but she was the most likable of all the characters in the film, all the others were catastrophic. A shame she got so much **** as it wasnt warranted, just like Tran in Starwars, blame the writing not the actor!
 
Be interesting to see what the storyline is for all the equipment and ecto 1 being stashed in an old farmhouse. Realistically it should be ecto 1 a as that's the last car to feature in the films, the real world reason as to why it's not is it's basically sitting rusting away with most of its parts missing on the Sony backlot.

Think 1a was a bit over the top anyway, they just seemed to glue a bunch of lights onto it for no real reason and it looked a bit too goofy.

This is the last known image of the car : Cqd6maN.jpg



The original ecto 1 was restored a few years back but some things weren't done properly in regards to some of the lights.
 
Last edited:
Grandmaster Fap! said:
So official GB3 at last, i just wish Murray hadnt dragged his heels so much to the point we lost Ramis before it was made. Although im sure they will do some CGI to bring him back in some fashion even if its just to honour him.
Click to expand...


Murray is purported to be a bit of a weirdo to say the least. When they were doing the voiceovers for the game in 2009 he had a clause that said he recorded by himself with no other cast members present, then he apparently buggered off one day and never returned despite his lines not being complete. That and contacting him is meant to be almost impossible as he only bothers to check a voicemail number every so often. There's a video on youtube talking about it and he comes off as pretty odd. The only reason he was involved with the 2016 movie was Sony were considering litigation against him for his half assed attitude and constant refusal to take anything to do with Ghostbusters.
 
Nitefly said:
Completely disagree with you - in the 1984 film Winston is so token it’s painful. He barely has any lines or personality. I recall him stating he’s religious and that’s it. He has one ‘barely funny’ like in “that’s a big Twinkie”. He adds nothing to the film!
Click to expand...

Well, I watched it this morning. And I think you're wrong.

  • There's a lovely quiet scene with Winston and Ray driving in Ecto-1 back to the firehouse (just before Peck has the containment grid shut off) where they talk about the lines in the Bible about judgement day and Winston wonders if the reason they're so busy right now is because the world is about to end.
  • His opening scene, the job interview with Janine reading out a list of weird and wonderful phenomena in a bored tone. His response? "If there's a steady paycheck, I'll believe in anything you say" :)
  • Winston is the practical voice of reason when they're in the cell at the police station before the scene with the mayor, pointing out how absurd the whole deal is going to sound to a judge and grousing about getting a different lawyer to the rest of the team.
  • The aforementioned twinkie line bettered IMO by the one in the mayor's office. "Look, I've only been with the company for a couple of weeks, but I gotta tell ya these things are real. Since I joined these men I have seen **** that'll turn you white!" Not to mention his joining in with the others talking about how biblical the disaster could be with his line about the dead rising from the grave.
  • "Ray...when someone asks you if you are a God, you say yes."
  • The look he gives when Egon comes up with the plan about crossing the streams. It just screams 'oh, this is gonna suck...' Followed by him putting the button on it with "This job is definitely not worth eleven-five a year."
  • He even gets the last line before the credits! Not bad for a token character...
 
The reason the 80s film was so great is because each character is superb and has a different identity and motive.

I've heard people say it's one of the best films ever in that respect, which I find bizarre but, everyone has an opinion.

The women's version was ad-lib, off the script garbage. Funny sometimes, facepalm others.
Oh and dancing. Lots of cheesy uncomfortable dancing. It is indeed a mirror of the original film seen through the eyes of a weirdo director known for this type of comedy/dancing film.

This new stuff... Ghostbusters is a bit.... Old and classic. It won't catch the vibe of the original. I don't think people really want "ghosts" in 2020. :p we will see.

Go watch the red letter media review of 2016 Ghostbusters. They sum it up so well, I utterly agree.
 
JRS said:
Well, I watched it this morning. And I think you're wrong.

  • There's a lovely quiet scene with Winston and Ray driving in Ecto-1 back to the firehouse (just before Peck has the containment grid shut off) where they talk about the lines in the Bible about judgement day and Winston wonders if the reason they're so busy right now is because the world is about to end.
  • His opening scene, the job interview with Janine reading out a list of weird and wonderful phenomena in a bored tone. His response? "If there's a steady paycheck, I'll believe in anything you say" :)
  • Winston is the practical voice of reason when they're in the cell at the police station before the scene with the mayor, pointing out how absurd the whole deal is going to sound to a judge and grousing about getting a different lawyer to the rest of the team.
  • The aforementioned twinkie line bettered IMO by the one in the mayor's office. "Look, I've only been with the company for a couple of weeks, but I gotta tell ya these things are real. Since I joined these men I have seen **** that'll turn you white!" Not to mention his joining in with the others talking about how biblical the disaster could be with his line about the dead rising from the grave.
  • "Ray...when someone asks you if you are a God, you say yes."
  • The look he gives when Egon comes up with the plan about crossing the streams. It just screams 'oh, this is gonna suck...' Followed by him putting the button on it with "This job is definitely not worth eleven-five a year."
  • He even gets the last line before the credits! Not bad for a token character...
Click to expand...
Cheers for the response and effort!

Well, all of those things happen, I can’t dispute that, but I don’t really place any weight on them when it comes to my own enjoyment of the film. I think you could remove him from the film and it would largely be the same. However, in my post above, I mention that scene re: God that you expand on - yes, I agree that is a good scene in the film.

Ghostbusters to me is principally Peter and Egon, then Ray, then Winston is just sort of... there. I get that he’s supposed to be the everyday guy doing it for a pay check but I think Weaver, Janine and ‘Honey I shrunk the Kids’ guy are better characters than Winston.

What do you think of Ghostbusters 2? The effects are so much better and I think I prefer the plot although it is really slow to get going. That film should start at the ‘court case’ intro bit.
 
Nitefly said:
snip
Click to expand...

Let us agree to disagree then :)

Nitefly said:
What do you think of Ghostbusters 2? The effects are so much better and I think I prefer the plot although it is really slow to get going. That film should start at the ‘court case’ intro bit.
Click to expand...

I like the second film a lot, partly because I have fond memories of the first time I saw it (dad took me to the cinema to watch it) and partly because I like the story. I don't even mind that it takes a while to get back to actual busting of ghosts (the courtroom bust of the Scoleri brothers doesn't happen until after the half-hour mark IIRC). Are the effects much better? Well, there's five years between the movies so you'd kinda hope that they would be! But I don't think it's a 'night and day' difference.

Side note - part of what I hated about the 2016 film was the CGI. In a choice between the effects of the first film and those, I'd pick the first film ones any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Other specific stuff I like about the second film:
  • Ecto-1a. I may be out on my own here, but I like the look of the car in this one. The multi-coloured light bars, the matrix sign, the extra equipment, the wheel-and-tyre combo with the smoothie hubcaps and the lettering picked out in white.
  • Egon getting a sense-of-humour buff up - his line to the judge about "why don't you just tell them you don't believe in ghosts?" when the Scoleri brothers attack, the "Do...", "Ray...", "Egon!" bit, him joining in with Ray to troll Winston about the size of rats when they're down in the old pneumatic transit subway (which was a real thing, I didn't know this until much later).
  • The mayor's line about having spent "an hour last night in my bedroom talking to Fiorello La Guardia and he's been dead for forty years". Just the way he delivers it to his aide :D
  • The kid in me loves the bit where Slimer is driving the bus that takes Louis to the museum for the final part of the film.
  • The scene between the four of them when they get the 'lightbulb' moment about using the Statue of Liberty to rally good vibes from the people. Well written and beautifully acted, especially from Akroyd.
 
Totally agree with JRS’s statements.

Winston was the voice of reason and sense in the group. Every founding ghostbuster had their own qualities and were scientists in their own field - Winston, well he was just like one of us. He was there for a job and the money that came with it and as the film went on he began to believe and contribute his own unique quality to the group - that he was the common man, well a former construction man.

The classic scene when they’re all locked up in a cell whilst examining Ivo Shandor’s building pretty much sums him up well.

As for the all girl GB, it deserves no recognition imo. It was bad, the script was a joke....”Get outta my friend GHOST!” - you kidding me? All the scenes with the girls back at base were cringe. The scenes outside the base with ghosts etc were well done but that was it.
 
@JRS I deffo agree that there was too much CGI in the 2016 film. Or rather, should I say bombastic CGI. The bits down the subway were good for example but the end sequences were just too much - felt like you were watching a green screen.

My other major criticisms were the inevitable ‘too long’ and the Ozzy cameo just seemed really out of place / 10 years too late.
 
Didn't even watch the other because of the whole forcing SJW crap on us thing. Get woke, go broke. They will get the idea eventually...

Will definitely watch this one though if its any good. Loved the old films.
 

Trailers playing it pretty close to the chest, for this one anyway, at 2:04 that looks like a Terror Dog from the original movie, the little you can see of it anyway. :eek:

And at 1:46 you have "Shandor mine", aka Ivo Shandor who was the leader of the Gozer worshippers and who made Dana's building in the original movie. Could be a return of Gozer, afterall Gozer was only pushed back through the gate at the end of the first movie, not destroyed.
 
Last edited:
Efour said:
The reason the 80s film was so great is because each character is superb and has a different identity and motive.
Click to expand...
And because it was a fairly straight film, in which the comedic actors played it pretty straight and just let the comedy happen naturally. Half of it was probably ad-libbed, but it worked because the actors were funny.

The reboot was more of an outright comedy film, in which the scenes were all written specifically around delivering the jokes, and every moment is devoted to setting up for that delivery. It felt so utterly scripted and unnatural. Blues Brothers 2000 is another classic example of this particular formulaic failing... something sounded funny on paper, so they filmed it and got **** as a result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom