It's not like the cartoon, where supernatural creatures are all over the place and active all the time.
I think with the cartoon (at least the first 2 seasons which have the more believable time frame) you could probably excuse the rampant ghost activity as a result of some kind of ectoplasmic/radioactive fallout caused by Gozer or Vigo that will eventually dissipate at some point. When beings like Gozer, Cathulu, Vigo, etc aren't around, ghosts are probably still there but can't be physically perceived unless they're really strong.
Also since the guy behind this movie confirmed that Ghostbusters 2 still happened in Afterlife (thanks
@Rotollo 2), and that there are a few ghosts from the cartoon and toys in this movie, along with the mounted turret on the Ecto-1 from the cartoon, I think its safe to say that the line about a lack of ghost sightings over the past 30 years along with the disbandment of the Ghostbusters was probably bull caused by misinformation or government cover-ups (or a lack of forethought when they wrote that line). But again, it all depends if Sony is smart enough to stick with these implications and stays faithful to what came before, especially to Ramis' vision. It would certainly give the morons at Disney a run for their money.
So I guess what I'm saying is that Afterlife may be unoriginal, a Stranger Things replicant and some lines and actions are questionable, its the only "30 years later" sequel to an old franchise that hasn't completely retconned everything in the franchise or disgraced the characters (although the CGI Ramis zombie is questionable), so it can still be salvaged if done right. In short, it feels like a less retarded and less insulting version of The Force Awakens and Terminator Dark Fate, in that while it tries to repeat the first movie a bit too much and was a sequel nobody asked for with a lackluster new cast, its not as hollow as them, its more light-hearted and is less offensive to the senses (minus Ramis' cgi duplicate and having Egon's behavior be really off), however the humor is not nearly as memorable as what came before.
And as for the cgi Ramis zombie I still feel that its distasteful. I mean I understand why they did it and it makes more sense than when Disney brought back dead guys in cgi for their crappy films, but this opens up a can of worms about the ethics of using the replicated images of deceased actors in movies. I think a less questionable alternative would've been to just hire a Ramis lookalike and dolled him up a bit, but I guess that might also feel a tad insulting... What do you all think?
Then in TDKR you find out Bruce Wayne gave up right after TDK and hasn't done anything for 8 years.
This is something that really bugs me about Hollywood. The TDK trilogy were good films but whenever Hollywood does a sequel nowadays they make sure that absolutely nothing happened between each entry no matter how many years pass (the longer the better in their case) so they have an easier blank slate to write from scratch on again. They really can't perceive any sort of timeline or events to build up from either because they're that lazy or think the audience is too stupid to understand that characters can be doing stuff when they're not looking which is just unbelievable especially with a massive gap like 30 years. For example, I feel like the only reason they originally threw in that 30 year line in Afterlife was to basically say to the audience "Don't worry folks! You haven't missed a thing!" and I feel that's a tad insulting to the intelligence of the viewer since they're actually just saying "We didn't want to think too heavily on what went on and just wanted a clean slate for a do-over". This is not me shitting on Afterlife, just the concept of these hollow and thoughtless time skips with zero sustenance.
By the way, did anyone else notice that for all the Ghostbuster things in this movie, there was no Slimer?
Not complaining as it would have been hard to fit him in among everything else, but what is supposed to have happened to him? Leaves something for the next movie I guess.
Yeah they replaced him with that Muncher duplicate. Not sure why.
I think they could've just had him cameo like they did in GB2 or have him appear near the end with the old gang or in the post-credits scene.
I still view the game as the end of the series since it was in part the script that they intended to use for Ghostbusters 3. And plus that game treated real Ghostbusters as Canon because slimer is called that and is roaming around the firehouse as a kind of pet.
From the reviews it sounds like it's just basically the plot of part one redone for more money in 2021, Hollywood is not capable of any originality. It's just like how Star wars had a third death Star sequence in the horrible Disney reboot.
No it isn't as bad as the 2016 one, but it doesn't sound good and I won't be seeing it.
Agreed wholeheartedly. And yeah the game was indeed Ghostbusters 3 as intended by Ramis and was the last time the whole living cast was actually together (including Slimer). The only difference from the original Ghostbusters 3 pitches was that they changed Hell to Ghost World and added the "rookie" as your self-insert (personally I think it would've been best to have you play as Peter or alternate between the four).
As for Hollywood, their severe lack of originality is almost creepy, like all the talent that existed before died out with the last generation. I have to wonder though if this movie's success will cause any changes in how Hollywood handles these sequels and reboots.
Do movie studios hate actual voice actors this much?
With a passion. Just look at how they treated the voice actors for Space Jam 2.
Anyway have some more salt.
How Donald Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos, and a cabal of right-wing clowns bullied the new “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” into existence.
web.archive.org
