New Ghostbusters movie in OG movie universe Jason Reitman directing 2020

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

That sounds about right, though I have yet to actually see any proof that any of the Aykroyd drafts that they were trying to court Murray with were actually any good. People tend to gloss over that.

I never even considered that. But I also recall seeing somewhere that Murray had said that he'd only return if he was killed off and would appear as a ghost in the movie... lol! It'd be interesting if they were able to do that with Ramis somehow. I don't think that he would have objected to that to be honest. I think he'd have laughed.

[drgon78]

Murry didn't want to do another one because he had a falling out with Ramis during/after the filming to Groundhog's Day.

[ZariusTwo]

Title confirmed

Ghostbusters: Afterlife

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a3...tle-afterlife/

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Title confirmed

Ghostbusters: Afterlife

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a3...tle-afterlife/

I can dig it.

[Wildcat]

It’s a fine title. I know some were upset they didn’t use “3”. It would have been cool but doesn’t really matter since the movie itself is part 3 regardless.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

It’s a fine title. I know some were upset they didn’t use “3”. It would have been cool but doesn’t really matter since the movie itself is part 3 regardless.

No one could have possibly expected them to make it be "Ghostbusters 3." Not even when Ramis was still alive and we were still hoping for a full-on third movie.

[Leo656]

Yeah, everything I've seen recently implies that the role of the originals might be smaller than Most people expect or hope - I've seen articles refer to it being a single scene, but I don't think that's accurate - but regardless, since it's not really "about" the originals then calling it "Part 3" wouldn't feel right.

[snake]

Appropriate title, because this franchise is essentially in the afterlife.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yeah, everything I've seen recently implies that the role of the originals might be smaller than Most people expect or hope - I've seen articles refer to it being a single scene, but I don't think that's accurate - but regardless, since it's not really "about" the originals then calling it "Part 3" wouldn't feel right.

I suspect they will be held back -- mostly -- until the third act but then we'll get a good dose of them.

[Sumac]

Also there was that video game, which basically was "Ghostbusters 3" in everything, but the name.

[Leo656]

They could've put a period on the franchise right there with that game and I would still have been pretty damn satisfied.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Also there was that video game, which basically was "Ghostbusters 3" in everything, but the name.

Originally Posted by Leo656

They could've put a period on the franchise right there with that game and I would still have been pretty damn satisfied.

Yup... that game was amazing. And it was a legit story sequel to the content of the first flick. I love Ghostbusters 2, but taking that game into account, Ghostbusters 2 is to that franchise as Temple of Doom is to Indy. It's just another generic adventure amidst the larger story.

[ZariusTwo]

Plot

Vanity Fair reports that the new story will follow Carrie Coon (Gone Girl) as mom Callie, her science-obsessed daughter Phoebe (Captain Marvel’s Mckenna Grace), and gearhead son Trevor (Stranger Things’ Finn Wolfhard) as they move to a small town in Oklahoma where they don’t know anyone, but have inherited property from Callie’s father, whom she didn’t know.

Unlike Ghostbusters 2016, the new movie will connect directly to the original via the “Manhattan Crossrip”, a “technical term for that long-ago bizarre incident in New York involving an apocalypse-summoning skyscraper, a gargantuan killer marshmallow man, and four working stiffs who managed to fight back against an ancient Sumerian God named Gozer.” Most of the original cast is expected to return, although it’s not clear in what capacity they’ll return.

“As the family arrives at an old farm, they begin to discover their connection to the original Ghostbusters,” Reitman tells Vanity Fair. “Trevor and Phoebe are about to find out who their grandfather was and whether they’re ready to pick up the proton pack themselves.”

The house they inherit is filled with Ghostbusters stuff including “a mountain of books and lots of bizarre technology,” and “Phoebe will find a device that reads psychokinetic energy.”

However, while Trevor and Phoebe are toying around with old Ghostbusters stuff, they’re not really familiar with the events of the 1984 movie. Thankfully for them, “they have a summer school teacher named Mr. Grooberson (played by Paul Rudd) who was a kid when the Manhattan Crossrip occurred. Although later generations may think of it as a myth, or not think of it at all, he remembers it obsessively and is excited to pass on what he knows.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...ife-first-look

[frank_one]

I'm getting a lot of The Force awakens vibes.

[Autbot_Benz]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Plot




https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...ife-first-look

This sounds really good.

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, the kids and mom are definitely Egon's family. They inherited all of Egon's toys when he died.

Also, people remember the "Manhattan Crossrip of 1984" but not the "1989 Statue of Liberty Walk"? Between this and the Ecto-1 not being the Ecto-1A, it's not looking great for GB2.

[Leo656]

Don't you just love it when the internet spends years telling everyone that a Perfectly Fine movie was actually terrible, to the point where it just casually becomes the accepted narrative?

I never met a single person who disliked Ghostbusters II until about 2001. I don't know anyone who likes it more than the first one, but I've never spoken with anyone in Real Life to this very day who thinks it's bad. It's a perfectly acceptable continuation of the first film's events. It was a bit more kid-friendly but the cartoon show was a monster at that time, so it's reasonable that they'd do it that way.

Eh. I like it.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Plot




https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...ife-first-look

Hm, sounds like they are treating it like the real life battle of los angeles. A significant and weird event of some kind that actually, historically happened with witnesses and newspaper articles, yet somehow has been suppressed across society as a real event.

[Wildcat]

Sounds great. Exactly what I’ve wanted out of this franchise. Continue ghostbusting with a new team...family members or otherwise.

Sounds like the containment unit was put in this abandoned mine. Glad the first battle is being treated as a significant event that people remember.

I don’t think they’re really ignoring GB2. They’re just not bringing it up yet. I think we’d know by now if it was a retcon style sequel.

[snake]

They're pulling a Return of the Jedi/Prequel Trilogy in TFA with GB2. Predictable. I expect this film to be in the same vein as TFA and Dark Fate. F*ck nostalgia-baiting.