New Ghostbusters movie in OG movie universe Jason Reitman directing 2020

[Autbot_Benz]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I actually have seen DVDs that package "Answer The Call" with the first two movies. And I live in NJ.

But that still doesn't mean anything, it's just a cheap way for people who like Ghostbusters to get all three movies for ten dollars. It doesn't automatically mean they're in the same canon.

you are correct I just looked it up on Amazon .

well they haven't packed them together on Blu Ray/4k thankfully.

[Wildcat]

This really does look great. The upright terror dog toy looks awesome. I don’t care if they’re kids/teens. Seeing their toys makes me happy that we basically have the next generation team. Paul Rudd doesn’t seem to have a toy. I’ll be surprised if he does not return in a potential part 4.

I speculated Ray still runs his book shop. It must be in business because the window sign is on and he’s at the counter. It’s just after hours.

I’m curious that Gozer seems to look the same. I understand it’s recognizable but in the first movie Egon said it can be whatever it wants after Winston assumed it was a man. It’s using the same female form with buzz cut? The statue too.

Some think the mini Pufts will form Marshmallow Man. There’s this that nobody seemed to comment on. He has a spine...like the mini pufts are attaching to a skeleton. Creepy but cool (again I totally thought of a zombie MM).

Spoiler:

The only thing I’m slightly concerned about, well not worried but it would bother me, is the reasoning they give for going out of business a second time.

I know I brought it up before but as long as it makes sense I’ll be fine. Even saying ghost activity dropped to normal and they had nothing to catch.

Just no...”people stopped believing them and dismiss the chaos”. These events should be on YouTube within the movie. Conspiracy Theorists outside of NY would be ok. Skeptics making debunk videos would be funny.

[Leo656]

It does look fairly interesting.

My biggest gripe right now I guess with it being centered around a bunch of kids/teenagers is the timing of it. It was very obviously a choice they committed to back when "Stranger Things" and "It: Part 1" were all the rage and "kids vs. the supernatural" was like a trend. Now thanks to how long it took to make the movie along with the delays due to Covid, nobody cares about "Stranger Things" anymore and the whole idea seems very dated already even though it's only been a couple of years.

Even the Mortal Kombat reboot, when they announced it about three years ago, was originally going to be focused on a teenager who got sucked into all the craziness. Then they realized that was a terrible idea and also, that the trend was already over with, so they thankfully scrapped it and we got the movie we got. Which wasn't perfect, but it was better than that would've been.

Like if they were just starting to make this movie Right Now, you just know it would have a completely different focus and premise, and this one is a relic of a trend from a few years ago which has already been forgotten. Which is why you should never chase trends.

Doesn't mean the movie can't be good or anything, I'm just saying.

[Andrew NDB]

I'm sure it would be pretty simple. There was an epidemic of ghosts in the first movie because of Shandor's Gozer designs in Dana's building. After defeating Gozer and the Ghostbusters returning all of the ghosts to the containment unit, that'd be it for the ghosts. Then they had to work birthday parties because no more ghosts. In Ghostbusters 2 there was a second ghost epidemic because the river of slime and Vigo. When Vigo was defeated and presumably the river of slime destroyed/evaporated/otherwise dealt with, that'd just leave the ghosts that popped out of it during the movie that would still need cleanup. After that? No more ghosts again, so back into retirement they go.

I don't think anything convoluted is needed for an explanation. Though I do wonder... where are all the ghosts from Ghostbusters II being stored all this time? Or hell, where were they even being stored after Ghostbusters 1?

[Leo656]

Hmm, good point. One has to think the old firehouse is gone by now... and with it, the Central Containment Unit. We all remember the last time that thing got shut off.

I'm going to ASSUME that Egon found a way to somehow transfer the ghosts into a new storage unit, somehow, when it became clear that they'd have to leave the firehouse. They must have still been stored someplace all this time, there's no way they could've escaped or they'd be all out there causing havoc on a mass scale like in the previous two films.

I really hope the new movie explains it, because that would be sort of a massive plot hole. I kinda have a feeling they know better than to just ignore something like that. But we'll see.

[ZariusTwo]

So the vibe I get from this trailer is...it's Beetleborgs?

[Wildcat]

Maybe they were going for the “kids vs supernatural” trend but since Egon passed away in real life having his family inherit his stuff makes a lot of sense for a plot. Because they had to address his absence and it’s a good way to pay tribute to Harold Ramis. That makes it seem like a natural idea.

I’m sure Egon found a way to keep the ghosts contained but I’ll be surprised if there are no scenes in NY (besides the book shop). Not necessarily ghost fighting but anything substantial.

Ghosts disappearing after defeating Vigo is fine but that’s what generally bothers me. Ghosts are not exclusive to Gozer and Vigo. They shouldn’t be the only evil entities that can summon ghosts.

Vigo could return. Ray quotes him in GB2 how he threatened to return (which he did)...”time is but a window, I’ll be back”. I do hope they create a new villain if it gets a part 4 though.

[Anarchistguy]

Originally Posted by Autbot_Benz

Ignore SDP's nonsense Answer The Call is not #3 it has nothing to do with the first two movies. Answer the call is never packed with 1 and 2 in the states. Afterlife will be #3 since it ties into the first two movies.

https://i.imgur.com/jmK2BA8.jpg

Isn't #3 the 2009 video game?

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Anarchistguy

Isn't #3 the 2009 video game?

Well. Let's see if it still "works" after the new movie. I suspect it may end up that they repurpose a few of the bigger ideas in the game in the new movie. Though this is a Reitman love letter... and it'd seem pretty sh**ty to discard Ramis' last GB thing. So maybe it's intact in some vague and not mentioned way.

[sdp]

Video games are never canon even if marketed as being a part of the continuity, as soon as a new movie comes out they're retconned. It's the same story every single time. Answer the call will get a shout out before the video game from over a decade ago gets a reference, especially since it just rehashed the story from the movies.

[CyberCubed]

Usually movie directors also hate videogames and comics, so even if a story is continued there they always ignore it and just say that only movies are canon.

Most people don't care about comics that 90% of the population has never read.

[Sumac]

The only time, I know movie directors were acknowledge video game as part of the continuity was Enter The Matrix and Matrix Online.

But they both were handled by creators of the series Wachowkies themselves. And its remain to be seen, if it stay that way after release of Matrix 4.

Otherwise, yeah, every time, when there was continuation of the movie story in form of a comic book or a game, it was immediately non-canonized, with release of the new official movie.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Anarchistguy

Isn't #3 the 2009 video game?

That game was terrific and the narrative and execution were top notch. I honestly wish they'd adapt it into a CGi movie....

[Leo656]

I liked the trailer, and I can kinda see what they're going for. Looks okay.

But I can't help but shake my head at the people who are like, "Why is it so SERIOUS? It's a sequel to a movie where a guy gets a blowjob from a ghost! C'mon, loosen up!"

Like, for one thing, the trailer also shows a bunch of Mini-Stay Pufts making each other into Smores, so I'm sure it's still going to at least attempt to be funny, even if not quite so lowbrow as the first movie.

For another, who knows whether or not the movie itself will be as serious as the trailer is. What I think they're going for, is to recreate the sort of feeling you got looking at the original as a kid. If you were 3 or 4, Ghostbusters wasn't a comedy so much as it was an action movie with jokes in it, which is a bit different. In my Kindergarten class, the Ghostbusters were just super-heroes who fought ghosts instead of mad scientists or evil robots or whatever. You get older, you start to see it for what it really was, but when you're a kid you're not in on the joke yet.

I think what they're trying to do with the marketing, is to present this movie as the way you saw Ghostbusters in your head at age 5, more than the way it actually was. If that makes any sense. More sincere and reverent. They maybe lay it on a little thick, but if you want fans who were kids Then to feel secure in your direction Now, it's an approach that makes sense.

Especially after Chickbusters did their whole "This Ghostbusters sh*t is stupid and you're stupid for liking it" approach with their movie.

[Andrew NDB]

Was GB1 or 2 ever really marketed as comedies? I mean, I know we look back at them as comedies, somewhat. And pretty much any sound byte of Venkman's is going to sound "funny" whether in a trailer or otherwise... but I don't think they ever were. I think they were kind of marketed as horror movies but starring SNL alumni and with funny bytes mixed in. For the most part. To where you expect funny stuff, but it isn't really being presented as a comedy. This seems in line.

I know the All-Female Ghostbusters was pushed as a comedy. Lots of the goofy bits were packed in there. Melissa McCarthy being thrown around the alley trying to use a proton pack, the neck twist, etc..

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Was GB1 or 2 ever really marketed as comedies? I mean, I know we look back at them as comedies, somewhat. And pretty much any sound byte of Venkman's is going to sound "funny"... but I don't think they ever were. I think they were kind of marketed as horror movies but starring SNL alumni and with funny bytes mixed in. For the most part.

I know the All-Female Ghostbusters was pushed as a comedy. Lots of the goofy bits were packed in there. Melissa McCarthy being thrown around the alley trying to use a proton pack, the neck twist, etc..

Y'know, interesting point. I was two when the first one came out, so the only trailers I would've seen are the ones on the DVD, and they're pretty serious. Seems like it was the same for Part II, even though I do vaguely remember more of those trailers being on TV as I was a bit older.

But yeah, for the most part I think it was just assumed there would be funny stuff IN them, because of the cast, but it wasn't promoted as anything "goofy" or "zany" either time. The only real "funny" part that was in all of the original trailers was "He Slimed Me!". The only "joke" from Part II in the trailers was the "Jell-O Mold" bit.

If you have to label them, I think they'd have to be "Action/Comedy With A Horror Bent". They're definitely action movies, and while there's horror elements IN them they're honestly not "scary" to anyone but a very young child, so I hesitate to label them as "horror". But there definitely are jokes in them, they're just not the focus of the film. So that's how I come up with my "label". They're not straight action, or straight horror, OR straight comedy... but there's elements of all three and I'd say it comes out to be Mostly Action, Then Comedy, Then Horror.

I think it's only become en vogue in more recent years to try and label them strictly as "comedy". For one thing, "metrics" demand simple labels and if this is your cast then it's easy to just go "Okay, comedy". But it does create an odd disconnect, like for example when people watch it for the first time Now and go "Huh... I thought it'd be funnier". Because it IS funny but "being funny" wasn't the point of it and so it doesn't actually play like a comedy even though it's nowadays often spoken of as one. It's not "Stripes" or "Meatballs" or whatever, not even in the same vein even with the same people involved.

Chickbusters definitely TRIED to be a "comedy", wall-to-wall, but it was the least-funny "comedy" I've ever seen. Because it just... wasn't... funny. The ONLY time I laughed, was Ernie Hudson's "We ain't stackin' 'em like flapjacks!" line, and most of that laugh was for his delivery of it. So that's what got me, literally the very last line of the f*cking movie.

See, it's one thing to make a "Ghostbusters" movie and just decide, "We're gonna make fun of Ghostbusters for 90 minutes, just totally take the piss out of it, call the fans morons, all that stuff." I think you suck if that's your approach, but hey, whatever, you can make that choice. At least do it WELL. The problem is... if they called it "Ghost Smashers" and sold it as a straight-up parody, like "Super-Hero Movie" or "Scary Movie" or something in that vein... it STILL just wouldn't be funny and it still wouldn't be any good.

That's why the criticism of the criticism for that movie was so inane. "You just hate women!" "No, dawg, you made fun of this franchise AND you made a 'comedy' that isn't funny. You failed twice, just own that sh*t." But they didn't.

[Wildcat]

All I need to know is Dan Aykroyd is into the supernatural and GB was his idea so anytime people try to claim “oh you don’t understand it, it’s not about the ghosts” it immediately discredits them imo.

I’ve been told this various times over the years (as recent as last year about Afterlife) and when IMDB still had boards. Don’t contradict the creators and explain how THEIR movie was really intended

I agree it’s not really scary. Action/horror but funny sometimes. A lot of movies have humor sprinkled throughout but takes itself seriously overall.

GB’16 was not making fun of the property. It just did not have a good balance and the silly moments really break the focus. If you take out the parts meant for laughs it’s quite competent. Dialing it down 1 notch would have helped a lot.

I actually hate the proton pack flinging Abby in the air. Knocking her backwards was fine but that was too slapstick. Testing stuff in the alley is funny and I liked that they showed equipment progression.

Anyway I’m really happy for Dan Aykroyd. He’s wanted to do GB3 forever and he finally gets a proper continuation. It’s eerie the history this sequel has had even up to release delays.

[Leo656]

I got high and started talking with someone on the He-Man forum about doing "Ghostbusters in the Bordello of Blood", which then morphed into "Ghostbusters vs. Demon Knight in the Bordello of Blood", and now I want that movie instead of this one.

Norm MacDonald's gonna be in it, and we're bringing Feldman back. It's gonna be awe-some. Oh, Billy Zane, too.

F*ck this movie come see our Ghostbusters movie instead, it'll be better.

[Andrew NDB]

This more or less seems confirmation that at the very least, the OG GBs will get suited up in the movie at some point:

https://collider.com/ghostbusters-af...-toys-figures/

[Allio]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

So the vibe I get from this trailer is...it's Beetleborgs?

The worst part about this that aged poorly? All the comic book stuff.