Loved it! Came out of the cinema really happy. When i watch something like this I try to go in totally open minded with low expectation. I felt it’s unfair to go in with tons of expectation that it’s going to make me feel like I did when I watched the original . It’s been decades since so it’s very unfair to make comparison. I try to treat it as a separate piece of art. I feel like they can’t win. If it’s too much like the original half the fans will hate it and If it’s too different the other half will hate it. I think we need to stop piling such expectation on “a film” and just let it wash over you . Keep the original in your mind but don’t automatically say this one is rubbish by contrast. Lots of people I’ve seen online seem to have already judged it
So, your point is “don’t expect a (multi-hundred-million-dollar-budget) film to be good, expect it to be shit and if it’s shit then that’s ok” 🤷🏻 Maybe people are pre-judging it because it reeks of nostalgia porn and we are all actually getting sick of it.
@@Dr.Beetlejuice110 He’s not got “pee in his cereal”…he just didn’t like the movie and explain his reasons. Is that not enough? Just because you lapped up the cynical nostalgia bait doesn’t mean us more discerning folk need to.
@@gzz8551 LOL cynical....please....all the cynicism is on your side of the conversation. Just because we like the movie doesn't mean you have to shit on it with your let's hate all nostalgia BS. Like there are some in invisible rule to follow when creating a ghostbuster sequel or something. His opinion is definitely his and your opinion is definitely yours BUT for you person....when you start back hand insulting people for liking the movie. Your basically telling them that you hate them for liking the movie. Basically dictating what they should or shouldn't like. Just simply say it wasn't for you and move on. That piss in his cereal but was because he sounds upset to me in the podcast. Maybe he's upset with movie idk. He doesn't seem like a fun guy at all. Hell of pretentious, hell of I know everything about film etc. So with my love of film I'm gonna judge all films accordingly. Like, we get it. It wasn't for you, don't shit on others that like it. HUGE character flaw that makes me shut him off and want to shut him out. It comes off as dictator, and I know better and it's a movie, not a subject to focus on to get your masters or certification in or something. Calm tf down.
I cannot emphasise enough how much I LOVE this interview. I agreed with Paul on almost all points (I did like the music and most of the fan service was sweet) but but but - I'm hyped because you actually covered a huuuuge problem I have with this film that I haven't seen anyone else bring up. It's that one element that will prevent me from ever enjoying this movie which is a huge shame as I really wanted to like it. When Ray said Egon tried to warn them about Gozer's return and they didn't believe him - that straight up appalled me. It's so horribly out of character not just for Ray (a person who takes everything at face value) to not believe Egon (a person who is always serious), but for the others to equally reject it? To the point where he steals all their stuff and bogs off to the midwest overnight??? That they just wrote him off like that is *deeply* insulting and heart-breaking to me. It hurt me so much that when he big crescendo came with them turning up in suits I wasn't happy - I was *mad* at them! They didn't deserve to swing in acting like the heroes and I didn't see them that way, which only rubbed salt into the wound. And then at the end 'oh hey sorry we didn't believe u wtvr' and Egon's ghost is all eh it's cool NO IT IS NOT COOL The rest of the movie is a charming dumpster fire. I have a notepad with literally 20+ unanswered questions, mostly about Shandor and the town and Gozer's behaviour and UGH. GB is my fave movie; I was 10 when it came out and every other rebooted franchise from that time I enjoy at least to some degree. But this... I could only ever enjoy this if a tv series came out validating why Egon was so abandoned by every loved one who just thought he was crazy. If you can.
The issue is not how the film was made, it's WHEN it was made. This is era where PG-13 is where we are at. The 84 would have been an R if came out today as is unless several changes were made. Plus the nostalgia nods are also a modern trope. Marvel is guilty of it, so is Star Wars. The thing is, what we from the 80s didn't know is that a lot of our childhood movies had 50s fan service. Star Wars had Flash Gordon, Ghostbusters Abbot and Costello, we are seeing these new films like our parents did when they either loved the films or rolled their eyes like "MY film did it better."
It wouldn't be R (Even with the blow job scene) It's implied. It would have been PG-13. Actually, films like this and Gremlins are why PG-13 came to be. It's not R material, but PG is to low. So that was the medium.
Disagree....they 'may' have been influenced but are still original unto themselves. Imagine a sequel had come out in 84 based on an original film from 1948! Thats where we're at now.
@@John231984 Yeah, I think you are right. But by R, I mean this film in 84 was aimed more for adults who could bring along their kids. Where as the new one is the reverse if that makes sense. Short of dropping the F bomb, the 84 movie did not really hold back on its humor and language. So, in today's world I feel it would have been a bit more edgy had it been aimed at adults if that makes sense.
@@cianog Yes, you are right, it is its own thing. Though Ghost Busters was a short lived live action TV show in the 70s (not really related) but the 84 movie has a lot of influence from the past as Star Wars did.
Apparently that was Olivia Wilde. Another lady was credited as doing the voice. When you said it wasn't I had to check that up cause I was like "Where did they find her twin then?" But it was her.
@@OliverHarper Ghostbusters 2 is canon the events and the ghosts in Ghostbusters 2 just so happen to happen and Viggo was awoken but none of it was predestined to happen Gozer and Zuul were making their return and Egan was terrified and frightened for his friends and the world and was haunted by Gozer spirit and it drove him cool he tried to tell them about the return they didn't believe him because they thought Gozer was dead for sure but this premonition and admiration by Phoebe woke Ray Peter and Winston up to take action and join the duel against Gozer as ghosts have comeback to the world so that's exactly what it is Ghostbusters 2 is Cannon but none of the events of the prehaunted slime and Viggo return were predestined into ghost history plus the date recurs to the first sighting of ghosts in history so it makes sense for Gozer
@@OliverHarper and even though they never stated Ghostbusters 2 he had a kid deleted scene from Ghostbusters one which is canon and I was shocked and happy to see with Egan and Janine talking after the fight with Gozer says that they were with each other so Egon and Janine had a kid daughter somewhere after Ghostbusters or Ghostbusters 2 the team found out later
I really like the film, but i just dont love it and to me for someone who has high hopes of the film delivering me a magical feeling it just greatly disappointed me, i really didn't like the 3rd act all that much, i just felt it was rushed, the backstory behind the separation of the ghostbusters wasn't good enough either, as it's just a bunch of dumb mellow drama thrown in to make the ghostbusters closed off. janine should've been the mother, hands down it only feels more natural from the progression of first film's setup and the cartoon only furthers the romance, a legitimate marriage is the next best thing. Some Alterations i'd make to the film is first janine being the mother and grandmother of the new spengler family, the build up to the original 3 ghostbusters returning with more scenes of them both reminiscing of egon and what he did for the team, more reactions of the town with more ghosts either from ghostbusters and/or ghostbusters 2. and finally the backstory where instead of egon initiating the investigation, it's ray and egon who starts it in 1992 a year after the video games events cally would've been born in around 1990, and all of the ghostbusters initially investigated the mines together with very small amounts of success, as the years went on, one by one each ghostbuster starts to lose more faith in egon and ray until its nothing but ray and egon, when the time of egon's death has come, it would be in the same fashion as the original but with a different context and no distracting nod other than what's necessary. as for cally she would know alot about the ghostbusters but still has a bitterness towards egon for almost the exact same reasons , except now janine has tried to convince cally that egon's a good man, but every time she tries they never went anywhere to resovle cally's resentment. as for ray he would've felt guilty for having his investigation lead to his best friend's death and it's made worse with the family except for janine either being unknowing or has a bitter hatred towards egon. and some events might change depending on the scene but as a whole it would've been relatively the same but with a much more satisfying backstory, and with the execution of jason reitman, it could've been more thought provoking and made me smile like a big idiot.
I dont know this other guy but im going to say the possible difference between him an the Audience is film school. I used to dream of going to film school and in away im glad i didn't now. In order to disect somthing first you have to kill it.
Perhaps, but the movies are made now (nostalgia overkill) means that they will have no life in the future. Ghostbusters was made in 1984. 37 years ago…and we are still tapping that for cash. Do you think anyone is going to even remember Ghostbusters: Afterlife in 37 years?
I kinda feel the same way as Paul. But I still liked the movie. When I saw the farm in the trailer I thought maybe Egon had married Ray's cousin Sam and moved to her farm. That could have worked with why Ray would be mad at him and why the family graveyard on the farm was so active (because it was next to a door to afterlife). Also, I think Egon was secretly funded by Winston and Janine the whole time. They could have even had one of the kids in town be a descendant of Ivo spreading rumors or keeping townsfolk away from the mine. Or they could have had Oscar standing watch at the Firehouse with Ray making a phone call to him. "Oscar, can you call your Dad?" "He isn't my Dad." "He married your Mom." "They aren't together." Yada yada yada.... Could you imagine seeing the Venkman nametape and it be Oscar (even tho we know Peter isn't really his Father) that shows up with the guys to help defeat Gozer. I agree that the dates should have included 1989. Maybe they could have worked in Ray a little earlier to help fix the capacitors. Again, I agree that this is a love letter to Harold Ramis. That is ok. I hope they can continue with Phoebe, Podcast, and Gary. Maybe even get them all to move in to a refurbished firehouse. For me I like the tone of the Original movie and the tone of the Animated Series (some of which was written by Dan Akyroyd & J Michael Strazynski). Maybe get JMS to help write an HBO series with Akyroyd. Who knows. But I do love this franchise and hope to see some sort of series or movie with new and old characters.
Great discussion! Lot of great points. I agree the end was rushed, and some of the impact was lost as a result. But otherwise, I found it quite enjoyable. Kinda hoping there's a director's cut somewhere that pumps the brakes a bit.
Olivia Wilde did play Gozer but only in form not voice. Only thing that bothers me in film- Family are poor, now with added debts by Egon. At the end, Winston takes away Echto 1 and the back packs. Doesn't ask. Or buys. Takes. Then a post credit scene has him say how rich he is. Does he not help out the family in any way?!
We don't know that he didn't ask or bought it off of them. Or helped them out with the debt. You're assuming that he didn't. Considering what we know of Winston, and how he was already helping out Ray, I'd think it's a fair assumption that he helped out Egon's family. It's weird that you just assumed he was an asshole.
My overall feeling of the movie, and you pointed this out Oliver, is that it pulled a "Force Awakens" and got alllllll that nostalgia out of the way along with setting up new characters. They have the fans latched on and ready to go, so I'm looking forward to what they do next. I would hope a sequel won't be as heavy handed with the references. In fact it seems they exhausted just about every reference in THIS movie. So with a sequel I hope they can stand on their own two feet and be more original.
But everything what Force awakens did right, this movie did wrong. Force awakens had just the right balance of feeling new and fresh. I enjoyed Force awakens….i hated Ghostbusters Afterlife…..
I'm sorry but I couldn't take the discussion seriously when the one guy said it was the worst movie he'd ever seen in the cinema. Ghostbusters 2016? The last Die Hard? Tons of other examples? It wasn't the greatest movie but I thought it was a good sendoff to the original crew and jumping off point.
I'm not saying Gannon didn't have SOME legit criticisms, but to outright hate this movie...I just don't understand it. I'm trying really hard not to dislike his take on the movie. I just don't get it.
The Original Ghostbusters wasn't a kids movie! It was a mild Adult Comedy for the inner child in Us! Afterlife was made for those Adults Grandchildren!
Gannon hits the nail on the head, sadly. Frustratingly, the film gets so many aspects spot on, but then sabotages itself. I got the same feeling watching this as Raimi's Spider-man 3: enjoyable moments but key elements bafflingly underbaked and just don't work. At least they can't lean on the first movie this heavily again... the cartoon should've been the blueprint anyway.
The biggest problem to the plot for me is that Egon couldnt tell Ray Peter or Winston about the threat of Gozer returning! What?! Those three of anybody in the world are going to believe him after everything they have dealt with together especially Ray!!
I thought maybe they investigated together originally but Gozer was hiding the supernatural aspects that made Ray believe Egon was crazy. We don't see how that storyline was developed and it's honestly not a big deal unless you want to be nitpicky. It reminds me how for years people didn't understand why the Empire from Star Wars build such a major exploitable flaw in the Death Star only to be explained by the Rogue One film.
It felt like an honest effort which is something I rarely feel about any film these days. At near 36 I grew up seeing the movies on tape and playing with the toys while watching the cartoons which became a little extreme later on 👻 It was a little rehash but a welcome one. PS As a child, I was scared of my Ghost Busters sleeping bag with all the monsters on it lol
Completely agree about the cold opening. I expected Afterlife to have some intro stinger and then the theme song would start. Really missed this. I hope there's an extended Director Cut of this film.
@@gaglet the beginning was cool, but both GB1 and GB2 had the intro and then the theme music which really got you hooked. Afterlife should have opened with this style for the sake of consistency.
By the time the original cast returned, I was kinda hoping not to see them. I hate seeing characters from old movies, shuffling around as elderly people. Egon at the start, and as an invisible spirit, was fine. Ray on the phone was fine, if a little too grumpy. Shoulda left it at that, or made it about the original cast from the start. It just felt like an awkward and unnecessary shift in tone. I also HATED the supermarket scene. It made little sense. Some random ghost possessed those marshmallows by pure coincidence? As some kind of tribute act? Gozer became a marshmallow once, and now can't take any other form? And the slapstick was pretty stupid, too. Like...slapstick in a ghostbusters movie is fine. But not from fucking GOZER! But overall, it was good and had some cool ideas. It's a shame so meany people decided in advance that they were going to hate it or love it, purely based on where they stand on all the "woke" crap. Why is this movie even part of that discussion? People hated the 2016 one cus it was "woke", so they decided to love this one before even seeing it? (or the other way around) That's just stupid. For one thing: This movie is not an antidote to the 2016 one. That movie is still out there. It didn't go away.
2016 and Afterlife can both exist and can both be terrible to different ways. That seems to be the case here. At the end of the day it’s just a new bunch of people trying to recapture something they can’t recapture.
impossible to argue with these faults... yet I drank it up. Highly enjoyable... maybe our enjoyment of art doesn't rely on logic, even the logic of the story. I wouldnt want them to do this again. They got away with it for me this once... importantly they have opened up a whole new universe. I think we can all agree corporate interests will not pressure the creators to just try to trot out the same movie again
Some of these precieved "flaws" are just unmet preferences than actual problems with the film. People need every single plot detail explained to them and lack any sort of imagination to fill in the gaps. It's honestly kind of sad how people just can't relax and need to find faults when micro analyzing everything.
@@jahimjauh-hey5653 they’re not really unmet preferences though, they are glaring logical flaws. It doesn’t matter because the film is highly enjoyable. Tbf I also find nitpicking a pain and some people revel in being smarter than the movie they are watching which is annoying, but when done right criticism helps give a rounded view of a product, so not inherently bad.
I'm with Oliver. I liked it, it's pleasant and fine, and it has more good things than bad things. There are issues but it's overall mood is less cynical than the 2016 version, and much more heartfelt. It's almost too schmaltzy for a Ghostbusters movie at times but I get that it's a loveletter. The Superman Returns contrast is spot on. That movie tried to tug on the same strings but didn't land at all with me. This one succeeds fairly well.
I recon the Walmart was lit up just to say "look at how good our effects are" like in American werewolf in London when the transformation played out in a well lit room.
Dude your guest, Paul, would only have been happy if they made this movie for him and his 10 super fan friends. Afterlife is great popcorn fun, as it should be.
I dont think people watch ghostbusters for the office drama. They watch it to see ghosts get busted by characters they enjoy. Thats why this new ghostbusters movie delivered for me. I enjoyed the characters. I enjoyed the world. I enjoyed watching them bust some ghosts.
Sorry to resurrect this: I actually kinda enjoyed it more than the original. And that's exactly why: I don't care for the"Office Drama". It's why I loved the Terminal Reality Ghostbusters game so much. It was full of Ghost Busting.
He made some fair points. Especially the score. I've been arguing for years about why we should value more the underrated Randy Edelman! Thought Paul Rudd needed some scenes with the old cast. He's supposed to be this Ghostbusters super fan but I thought he ought to have been more nerdier and thereby slightly annoying as far as Dr Venkman would be concerned lol I think the film needed a new threat too besides all the Gozer stuff again. Having a new entity responsible for Egon's demise would have certainly ensured a new type of threat that would have surpassed Vigo's fan popularity. With all those corn and wheat fields in Summerville...Sam Hain might have fitted in quite perfectly to all this! (main villain of the Real Ghostbusters if you might be unfamiliar). Plus then you give the film a Halloween setting, different from the second's Christmas and New Year motif.
You both make some excellent points. I loved most of the film, flaws aside, but one thing I agree on is that the Wallmart scene should have had the lights off, to make it more suspenseful. Maybe start with the lights on and the mini puft starting to come out of the bag, followed by all of the other mini puft moments being cut, and the lights shutting off. Grooberson freaks out due to the puft and the darkness, so he starts to take off, only to round the corner and come across the terror dog. Instead of showing the multiple pufts arriving and bumping into his foot, you just have Grooberson stop around the corner, noticing the dog, and the dog reacting to Paul's footsteps. The rest of the scene plays out as is. That's how I would have cut it.
Ghostbusters is to me definitely very similar to Star Wars in how it was an unexpected lightning in a bottle hit that transcended it's own genre and appealed to mass audiences, and both are now burdened with a fanbase who will never agree on what the true "spirit" of the franchise is supposed to be. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't with this series no matter what you do. I think people would've been far more forgiving of this film if there had been an actual Ghostbusters 3 in the 90s or 00s, and this was just a spin-off into the next generation that introduced the same world to children. Some people seem annoyed that this isn't Ghostbusters 3, but I think anyone who's a fan of this franchise knows that Ghostbusters 3 was never going to happen because of Bill Murray. As far as reviving this franchise goes and opening it up to the possibilities of new installments with new characters, I think this was pretty darn good.
True, but watching The Last Jedi then following that up with Mandalorian, you see a completely different take on the universe. One is dogshit and the other one is great, and its pretty universal amongst the fanbase as to which is which.
Totally agree with Paul re: Ramis. I've just got round to watching it and its absolutely ghoulish, and I hope SAG get on this reanimation stuff quick before we get Steve McQueen in Fast 12. The early shots in silhouetted profile where you can tell who it is but not a creepy puppet of a dearly departed actor, and the hand steadying Phoebe, if the Ramis estate are happy thats fine, but they shouldn't have been asked. This film is better put together than 2016, no doubt, but I feel like 2016 gets added marks for trying to present something somewhat fresh, and Afterlife loses marks for ghoulish profiteering off the dead, bad characterisation and various plot holes and rehashes. They're both worth watching though to pass a couple of hours, but you do leave Afterlife with a horrible taste in your mouth with the Egon force ghost. 2016 is a youngish family member trying to cook you a complicated meal and making a mess of it, edible but really not as nice as its supposed to be and if youre being harsh, a waste of ingredients. Afterlife is a McDonalds big mac meal. Nice, but not special, and it has a big Harold Ramis ghost shaped hair in it that puts you off the final bite. Looking forward to someone new coming in and making a proper sequel though because the cast are pretty great.
I thought I was the only lifelong ghostbuster fan who watched the film opening night and felt this way. I went back to the theater, convinced a second viewing would change how I thought about the film, but it didn't.
I have a feeling that a second viewing would make me dislike the movie. I kind of liked it but there's a LOT of problems with it. There's a lot of good stuff, too, though. I don't know. I'll watch it again later but I think it's one of those movies where the bad parts will stick out more and more with each viewing.
@@gokaury I think Paul has said in the past that he is more of a fan of the Real Ghostbusters cartoon than the films. Also I don’t think he realises how much Ivan Reitman had to do with creating the script for the original film. He was uncredited as a writer but it was his idea to make it about starting a business.
Completely agree with Gannon. The CG Harold Ramis ghost, to me, was far more offensive than anything the 2016 film did. I'm very happy to hear Ramis' daughter was fine with it. That's great to know. But the guy is dead, man. He had no consent to using his image whatsoever. One thing the 2016 film had was it at least existed on its own continuity and world so they had free reign to do whatever, however Afterlife is explicitly not only set in the original world and not only was it carrying the legacy of the first two films, but that's literally the whole plot of the film. And doing something that already is a highly controversial special effect used in films of using deceased actors' likenesses was not respecting the legacy at all. I was cringing watching that entire ending. Also, Gozer AGAIN? Why not use the huge amount of ghosts from the Real/Extreme Ghostbusters? Remember Gozer, remember the terrordogs? Remember "there is no .... only Zuul"? Remember when you were watching a better film instead of a film that can't stand on its own?
I disagree, the problem with Ghostbusters sequels are not the Ghostbusters concept, the problem is the people in fancy suites running the franchise, remember, in one point of history "everyone" truly believes that Batman was a dead property to Hollywood condemned to be a campy character for all eternity until Tim Burton arrived, and this "conception" of cheap justification of saying "is not posible to make another one" and "is not possible recreate that" is proved wrong repeatedly, people believe that a Lord of the Rings movie was imposible to film, say that Ridley, Banjo & Kazooie, Steve, Cloud, Zephirot and Sora will never be in Smash Bros, they say Fighting and beat them up games are dead. If something fails is not evidence of being imposible to do, is more probably that was made in the wrong way.
Tiny towns in Oklahoma DO have Walmarts. In some towns, that's about ALL they have. I have seen them. Paul seriously overestimates what it takes to get a Walmart in America.
Saw ghostbusters afterlife the first time and liked it initially. I had a little chuckle and a tear. Lapped up the nostalgia and went away thinking it was at least better than the 2016 movie. I then saw it the second time and started to feel very differently about it. I doubt I will bother with it again. Mekenna Grace is good but she is just playing a young Sheldon? Also the amount of call backs even to the point where we are getting nostalgia from a crunch bar wrapper! It seems modern films are made to get as much money as possible out of it. What happened to having good characters, storyline and dialogue? I think I'm done with these modern franchise reboots. Not enough talent and art and more about how much they can make!!
Regarding this too much fan service stuff- Are the fans not people who pay to see movies? So therefore shouldn't they expect to be catered to and satisfied? 🤷Maybe its just me
I liked everything up to the "big ending". Way too much joking when they showed up. When Gozer says "Are you a god" I sat up because I thought Ray was going to say "YES", and they all open fire in triumph...but they made a joke out of it, and took the air out of the entire scene.
People including myself were clapping in the theater throughout the movie and especially at the end. It is very rare that I go to a movie and people actually get rounds of applause at the end. That maybe happens once or twice within a 2-year period. To me, that means something. It must have been entertaining to some point-- even if it was kind of a lot of member berries throughout the movie.
@@terrealexander4442 applause is for the performers. The performers aren’t in the room with you lol. So you’re clapping for yourself being entertained. That shit is weird 🙃
Just an FYI it seems it was Olivia Wilde. She's not credited but it seems theres confirmed reports she was one of two actresses who played Goozer. Simmons and Wilde are sort of odd cameos cause I feel they are two actors who should get bigger roles and would have been better in more larger roles in this franchise
I think Simmons was a favour to the director as he's worked with him on Juno. Olivia Wilde's might be a favour to Sony as they're letting her direct Spider-Woman
That last shot after seeing before Harold title card was not a badly film shot and that is not a random film shot that is the same shot from the first Ghostbusters film with Ray and Winston driving on the bridge talking about God and ghosts and the end of the world that shot is reminiscent of that scene is that scene use a very similar shot is purposely perfect it proves the Ghostbusters are back and for good I mean if something's fun bouncing and there's something strange in your neighborhood who you going to call
That's because it's either a good movie with a lot of bad parts in it or a bad movie with a lot of good parts in it. It depends on how you look at it (or want to look at it).
THIS FEELS LIKE A 80S FILM, MATRIX 4 FEELS LIKE A 90S FILM!!!!!!!!! PERFECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@OliverHarper I believe it's both, Portner physically portrays her in spectral form I think, then Wilde was her in physical form and she was dubbed over by another actress
@@WilliamHaywardPainter Gozer's voice was dubbed by sexy mature Iranian actress Shohreh Aghdashloo (Chrisjen Avasarala on The Expanse, Admiral Paris in Star Trek Beyond).
@@DoctorPretorious616 Yes, that's her! I'd not heard of her before, to my dismay, but she's a great performer. Interestingly, Emma Portner and Elliot Page were together, and Page was in J. Reitman's Juno, one of my favourites
I don’t believe Paul Gannon saw the same film as all of us? “Worst movie that he ever saw in a theater”? Please list all of the films that you have seen in one, sir.
Loved this movie- and will see it again. It does have a few opportunities obviously (really agree that Egon would not just leave the Team) It had way more heart than I expected. Love this channel Oliver- thanks for doing it.
It is unfortunate that the "Egon leaving the team" wasn't explained better. But I could see it happening if egos got in the way. Remember, in the beginning of GB Egon is the one at the library taking readings (and he's the one who would have drilled a hole in his own head at another time, if he hadn't been stopped by Ray and Peter). Ray may be the heart of the Ghostbusters, but Egon is the technical one. The one slightly off kilter socially. The one who might go off to try his own experiments if, for whatever reason, Ray isn't willing to go along with it. We had already seen in GBII that the team was capable of falling apart. Depending how circumstances, it's plausible that Egon might have gone solo on this. Perhaps, so involved in their own things, the others didn't want to take what he was saying seriously. A lot can happen to change attitudes in 40 years.
It's not like the movie is collapsing under its own weight. If it's too dumb and shallow to fill a movie, it's not going to be better by stretching it over a 10 part series to "let it breathe".
That Guardian review of this film seems to be venting a lot of frustration about the film industry, and channeling it through this movie. I share those frustrations but bloody hell!
They're not trying to create a freaking Universe with this if that was the case they would have had a new Ghostbusters longer ago before the reboot came out you see Ghostbusters reboot was a well-intentioned by the cast and director film that tried to make a universe this is a passion project in favor of Ivan Reitman to properly continue the story it is not a cash in or a it is a Perfection film
I loved the movie. The only thing I disagree with Paul on is with Finn Wolfhard's character and the trap. He knew about it when they looked at the model of the house and asked his sister to explain it. That's the only this I disagree with you Paul.
I watched this film yesterday and I really enjoyed listening to this today. I had mixed feelings on the film and there are a lot of good points made here.
6:45 gentlemen . We can rest our case with this realization. Anything that tries to skirt around these being the main motivations is false. It's all money fellas if ya haven't caught on yet. The glaring difference? It was just as dog eat dog for sure. It boils to, before we needed talent, now we need just marketing and a good handler. The public will go see "ASS" now, its on every channel. 25:22 I should have given you guys more room to breathe lol. Yeah now were on to something. Sorry. I'm in the middle of moving , haven't had the proper time to assess.
I'm a big fan of Ghostbusters I was 10 when I saw it in the theater the sequel was ok but I just think that Ghostbusters is not a movie the cannot be franchised on the movie screen it's a product of the 80's and the writing by Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd really cannot consist duplicated.
I felt exactly the same in most ways! Seems there's more people that love this than hate it, I deffo don't hate it.. I'm a 38 year old man child with all the toys and love GB, the cartoon and even GB2(im aware of its problems but still oozes classic GB vibe, pun intended) since mid 80s. Going into this... Ray, Peter and Winston coming back and the whole "we gotta go to this small town to fix this problem" was what I was pumped about and actually ended up enjoying the indie film moments with new characters and hating them being in it. Aykroyd didn't feel like Ray and the back story was terrible. Ray's character is meant to be excited about supernatural! That's his thing.. Even in the face of sheer danger.. He's too bitter and also terribly acted IMO The last scene was cringe, I don't get why people who are seemingly GB fans cried! But that's me. Overall not a bad film, wanna see it again as I enjoyed the first half at least. Why there was no scene of the originals calling each other or something instead of just arriving in the nick of time and looking awkward I do not know!
hi oliver harper good youtube channel about movie reviews . i understand paul gannon and say the truth about ghostbusters afterlife. we have ghostbusters 1984, the real ghostbusters 1986, ghostbusters 2 - 1989, ghostbusters- the video game 2009 is (ghostbusters 3) . better is wenn dan akroyd, bill murray, ivan reitman write script and make new ghostbusters- video game sequel. i think ghostbusters afterlife is just like extreme ghostbusters tv series
Venkman is not Sexist! Think about the card reading scene in the original 1984 movie. He was studying the effects of negative reinforcement on psychic ability. The girl was the control and the guy was the experiment. He was nice to her and mean to the guy, then the guy showed psychic ability, proving his theory.
He said it’s the worst film he’s ever seen in a cinema. That’s total bullshit. Unless he’s only seen a couple movies in a theater. I really enjoyed the film and so did everyone in the cinema I watched it at. I don’t understand how a true ghostbusters fan could hate this movie.
Guys if you just take a moment to think about the setup of this film it falls completely apart. It’s not a coherent story. The story isn’t faithful to pre-established characters. Certain events and motivations integral to the plot don’t make sense.
I don’t see how you all can defend a film like this. This was such a wasted opportunity. Ridiculously bad story choices. Like….embarrassing. This film is embarrassing lol
@ren bao but it’s not though. I’m a fan. A huge fan. And I hated it. Just because it has references to the old shit doesn’t give it a pass on being a good movie. Do you pay money to see two hours of references? Or does the plot of the film actually matter to you? The plot of this movie makes NO SENSE.
"This maybe the worst film that I've ever seen in the cinema" If thats truly the case then maybe you should get out more hon. lol I'm afraid I think you were expecting far too much from this, but luckily for the rest of us your views don't matter. :)
Quite enjoyed the movie, but it's very much "Ghostbusters awaken", a reboot/remake of the original: some good new characters, but too much of the movie is drenched in nostalgia sauce.
The audience in my showing this past weekend... They were fantastic! We all laughed at the comedy, we all really felt the emotional moments as well. Honestly it has been several years since I've had such a positive experience for a film, moreso than any of the Marvel films (yes Endgame included). I 100% loved this film, aside from feeling like the ghost of Harold Ramis was conspicuously silent (but I understand why).
@@gzz8551 The audience matters to me for a couple of reasons. The first, I saw this in a theatre, with other people, which has left me with a uniquely positive impression for my first experience of the film. When I think back to what I though of the film, and how it felt, I will have a biased view of the film based on first impressions. I personally found several moments to be funny, and entertaining, and I was not the only one reacting to those moments. That reinforces my own opinions of the film, by having others react in a similar manner. The second reason builds off of the first, but rather than simply focusing on the psychological aspect of how watching a film with others made me feel personally, this reason reaches to my views on film as a whole in an analytical sense. Film, is entertainment; whether it is intended to make the viewer laugh, cry, shit themselves out of fear, convey a message, get you to rethink a concept or institution, etc. Further, this form of entertainment is visual, auditory, and moving media. It is unique from a painting, or a book, even a stage play. With those factors identified, I then ask the question... Does the film take advantage of all the resources unique to film, to fulfill the ultimate goal of entertainment? If it entertains even one person, or a handful of persons, then it is a success in my book. It is a fact that there was a non insignificant number of audience members that were clearly entertained throughout the course of the film, they laughed, they cried, even cheered. That, sounds like entertainment to me. Both of these reasons are why the audience mattered to me. My own personal reaction reinforced by others, feeling like part of a community of like minded souls, and fulfilling my own metrics of what makes a film successful. I've learned to take a step back from the hate train, each of us has our own subjective reactions to watching something; we all see our own versions of reality. Some of us will enjoy something that another hates vehemently. Go for it, that is ultimately your opinion; the caveat is that you shouldn't then force others to see your opinion as objective truth (which is ironic as I put forth my own opinion as an object method of looking at things). TL;DR I wasn't the only one laughing, so it made me feel good to laugh with others. I feel a film is a success when it entertains even a few people, and more than half of the audience was certainly entertained.
@@DrewSwenson It’s kinda sad that you need your opinion validated by everyone’s else reactions. Fuck everyone else. If your the only person on earth that likes something then like it.
@@gzz8551 That isn't the case. I'm going to like what I'm going to like. I really enjoy the Live Action Bebop, and everyone hates it XD. I loved Ghostbusters Afterlife, and I had a lot of fun sitting in a theatre that it seemed others enjoyed as well. Whether or not the audience laughed was not integral to my enjoyment, it was merely a plus. In terms of potential for a continuation of the franchise, the audience reaction bodes well for more films.
When did fan service become a crime?? ... These movies are made FOR their fans FFS, Any franchise movie worth a damn will have the fans in its mind first and foremost ... Afterlife seems to have been hugely targeted by a lot of critics for this ... and I'm starting to see a pattern. For this clown to say "It's the worst movie he has ever seen in a cinema" ... That might be the most farcical quote in movie review history.
Because it's a lazy shortcut to get fools to cheer. It has no creative merit, it serves no creative purpose, it's just there to push people's buttons. "I remember that! Yay!" Surely you have more self-respect than to be ok with being manipulated like that. It's like making a meal taste better by dumping a load of sugar and salt into it instead of using good ingredients. You ought to be insulted by having gallons of fan service dumped over you. Not lapping it up and asking for more.
Loved it! Came out of the cinema really happy.
When i watch something like this I try to go in totally open minded with low expectation.
I felt it’s unfair to go in with tons of expectation that it’s going to make me feel like I did when I watched the original . It’s been decades since so it’s very unfair to make comparison. I try to treat it as a separate piece of art.
I feel like they can’t win. If it’s too much like the original half the fans will hate it and If it’s too different the other half will hate it.
I think we need to stop piling such expectation on “a film” and just let it wash over you . Keep the original in your mind but don’t automatically say this one is rubbish by contrast. Lots of people I’ve seen online seem to have already judged it
So, your point is “don’t expect a (multi-hundred-million-dollar-budget) film to be good, expect it to be shit and if it’s shit then that’s ok” 🤷🏻
Maybe people are pre-judging it because it reeks of nostalgia porn and we are all actually getting sick of it.
@@Dr.Beetlejuice110
He’s not got “pee in his cereal”…he just didn’t like the movie and explain his reasons. Is that not enough?
Just because you lapped up the cynical nostalgia bait doesn’t mean us more discerning folk need to.
@@gzz8551 LOL cynical....please....all the cynicism is on your side of the conversation. Just because we like the movie doesn't mean you have to shit on it with your let's hate all nostalgia BS. Like there are some in invisible rule to follow when creating a ghostbuster sequel or something. His opinion is definitely his and your opinion is definitely yours BUT for you person....when you start back hand insulting people for liking the movie. Your basically telling them that you hate them for liking the movie. Basically dictating what they should or shouldn't like. Just simply say it wasn't for you and move on. That piss in his cereal but was because he sounds upset to me in the podcast. Maybe he's upset with movie idk. He doesn't seem like a fun guy at all. Hell of pretentious, hell of I know everything about film etc. So with my love of film I'm gonna judge all films accordingly. Like, we get it. It wasn't for you, don't shit on others that like it. HUGE character flaw that makes me shut him off and want to shut him out. It comes off as dictator, and I know better and it's a movie, not a subject to focus on to get your masters or certification in or something. Calm tf down.
I cannot emphasise enough how much I LOVE this interview. I agreed with Paul on almost all points (I did like the music and most of the fan service was sweet) but but but - I'm hyped because you actually covered a huuuuge problem I have with this film that I haven't seen anyone else bring up. It's that one element that will prevent me from ever enjoying this movie which is a huge shame as I really wanted to like it.
When Ray said Egon tried to warn them about Gozer's return and they didn't believe him - that straight up appalled me. It's so horribly out of character not just for Ray (a person who takes everything at face value) to not believe Egon (a person who is always serious), but for the others to equally reject it? To the point where he steals all their stuff and bogs off to the midwest overnight???
That they just wrote him off like that is *deeply* insulting and heart-breaking to me. It hurt me so much that when he big crescendo came with them turning up in suits I wasn't happy - I was *mad* at them! They didn't deserve to swing in acting like the heroes and I didn't see them that way, which only rubbed salt into the wound. And then at the end 'oh hey sorry we didn't believe u wtvr' and Egon's ghost is all eh it's cool NO IT IS NOT COOL
The rest of the movie is a charming dumpster fire. I have a notepad with literally 20+ unanswered questions, mostly about Shandor and the town and Gozer's behaviour and UGH. GB is my fave movie; I was 10 when it came out and every other rebooted franchise from that time I enjoy at least to some degree. But this... I could only ever enjoy this if a tv series came out validating why Egon was so abandoned by every loved one who just thought he was crazy. If you can.
The issue is not how the film was made, it's WHEN it was made. This is era where PG-13 is where we are at. The 84 would have been an R if came out today as is unless several changes were made. Plus the nostalgia nods are also a modern trope. Marvel is guilty of it, so is Star Wars. The thing is, what we from the 80s didn't know is that a lot of our childhood movies had 50s fan service. Star Wars had Flash Gordon, Ghostbusters Abbot and Costello, we are seeing these new films like our parents did when they either loved the films or rolled their eyes like "MY film did it better."
very well said sir......very well said
It wouldn't be R (Even with the blow job scene) It's implied. It would have been PG-13. Actually, films like this and Gremlins are why PG-13 came to be. It's not R material, but PG is to low. So that was the medium.
Disagree....they 'may' have been influenced but are still original unto themselves.
Imagine a sequel had come out in 84 based on an original film from 1948!
Thats where we're at now.
@@John231984 Yeah, I think you are right. But by R, I mean this film in 84 was aimed more for adults who could bring along their kids. Where as the new one is the reverse if that makes sense. Short of dropping the F bomb, the 84 movie did not really hold back on its humor and language. So, in today's world I feel it would have been a bit more edgy had it been aimed at adults if that makes sense.
@@cianog Yes, you are right, it is its own thing. Though Ghost Busters was a short lived live action TV show in the 70s (not really related) but the 84 movie has a lot of influence from the past as Star Wars did.
Apparently that was Olivia Wilde. Another lady was credited as doing the voice. When you said it wasn't I had to check that up cause I was like "Where did they find her twin then?" But it was her.
I read it was Emma Portner? Having checked, Emma doubled for her CG form.
time stamp to your reference? no idea what you referring too starting this video ;)
@@OliverHarper Ghostbusters 2 is canon the events and the ghosts in Ghostbusters 2 just so happen to happen and Viggo was awoken but none of it was predestined to happen Gozer and Zuul were making their return and Egan was terrified and frightened for his friends and the world and was haunted by Gozer spirit and it drove him cool he tried to tell them about the return they didn't believe him because they thought Gozer was dead for sure but this premonition and admiration by Phoebe woke Ray Peter and Winston up to take action and join the duel against Gozer as ghosts have comeback to the world so that's exactly what it is Ghostbusters 2 is Cannon but none of the events of the prehaunted slime and Viggo return were predestined into ghost history plus the date recurs to the first sighting of ghosts in history so it makes sense for Gozer
@@OliverHarper and even though they never stated Ghostbusters 2 he had a kid deleted scene from Ghostbusters one which is canon and I was shocked and happy to see with Egan and Janine talking after the fight with Gozer says that they were with each other so Egon and Janine had a kid daughter somewhere after Ghostbusters or Ghostbusters 2 the team found out later
@@OliverHarper that is Olivia I saw it in close-ups but they use the makeup perfectly to make the actress look like Gozer so you don't focused on
I agree with Paul 💯. This movie was depressing af.
"I'm glad they didn't do a remix" *Neil Cicierega's Bustin enters the chat*
The only one needed.
I really like the film, but i just dont love it and to me for someone who has high hopes of the film delivering me a magical feeling it just greatly disappointed me, i really didn't like the 3rd act all that much, i just felt it was rushed, the backstory behind the separation of the ghostbusters wasn't good enough either, as it's just a bunch of dumb mellow drama thrown in to make the ghostbusters closed off. janine should've been the mother, hands down it only feels more natural from the progression of first film's setup and the cartoon only furthers the romance, a legitimate marriage is the next best thing.
Some Alterations i'd make to the film is first janine being the mother and grandmother of the new spengler family, the build up to the original 3 ghostbusters returning with more scenes of them both reminiscing of egon and what he did for the team, more reactions of the town with more ghosts either from ghostbusters and/or ghostbusters 2. and finally the backstory where instead of egon initiating the investigation, it's ray and egon who starts it in 1992 a year after the video games events cally would've been born in around 1990, and all of the ghostbusters initially investigated the mines together with very small amounts of success, as the years went on, one by one each ghostbuster starts to lose more faith in egon and ray until its nothing but ray and egon, when the time of egon's death has come, it would be in the same fashion as the original but with a different context and no distracting nod other than what's necessary.
as for cally she would know alot about the ghostbusters but still has a bitterness towards egon for almost the exact same reasons , except now janine has tried to convince cally that egon's a good man, but every time she tries they never went anywhere to resovle cally's resentment.
as for ray he would've felt guilty for having his investigation lead to his best friend's death and it's made worse with the family except for janine either being unknowing or has a bitter hatred towards egon. and some events might change depending on the scene but as a whole it would've been relatively the same but with a much more satisfying backstory, and with the execution of jason reitman, it could've been more thought provoking and made me smile like a big idiot.
I dont know this other guy but im going to say the possible difference between him an the Audience is film school. I used to dream of going to film school and in away im glad i didn't now. In order to disect somthing first you have to kill it.
"It's okay to pull the stick out of your collective ass and have a little fun once in a while." ~ Gary of Nerdrotic on Ghostbusters: Afterlife
Perhaps, but the movies are made now (nostalgia overkill) means that they will have no life in the future.
Ghostbusters was made in 1984. 37 years ago…and we are still tapping that for cash.
Do you think anyone is going to even remember Ghostbusters: Afterlife in 37 years?
35 years now ... and counting down. Look up the definition of franchise 🤷♂️
I agree 100% with Paul. I left really confused and jealous of people that loved.
are you american?
@@gaglet yes.
@@Comptonny thought so
@@gaglet cool.
I kinda feel the same way as Paul. But I still liked the movie. When I saw the farm in the trailer I thought maybe Egon had married Ray's cousin Sam and moved to her farm. That could have worked with why Ray would be mad at him and why the family graveyard on the farm was so active (because it was next to a door to afterlife). Also, I think Egon was secretly funded by Winston and Janine the whole time. They could have even had one of the kids in town be a descendant of Ivo spreading rumors or keeping townsfolk away from the mine. Or they could have had Oscar standing watch at the Firehouse with Ray making a phone call to him. "Oscar, can you call your Dad?" "He isn't my Dad." "He married your Mom." "They aren't together." Yada yada yada.... Could you imagine seeing the Venkman nametape and it be Oscar (even tho we know Peter isn't really his Father) that shows up with the guys to help defeat Gozer. I agree that the dates should have included 1989. Maybe they could have worked in Ray a little earlier to help fix the capacitors.
Again, I agree that this is a love letter to Harold Ramis. That is ok. I hope they can continue with Phoebe, Podcast, and Gary. Maybe even get them all to move in to a refurbished firehouse. For me I like the tone of the Original movie and the tone of the Animated Series (some of which was written by Dan Akyroyd & J Michael Strazynski). Maybe get JMS to help write an HBO series with Akyroyd. Who knows. But I do love this franchise and hope to see some sort of series or movie with new and old characters.
Great discussion! Lot of great points. I agree the end was rushed, and some of the impact was lost as a result. But otherwise, I found it quite enjoyable. Kinda hoping there's a director's cut somewhere that pumps the brakes a bit.
Olivia Wilde did play Gozer but only in form not voice.
Only thing that bothers me in film-
Family are poor, now with added debts by Egon.
At the end, Winston takes away Echto 1 and the back packs.
Doesn't ask. Or buys.
Takes.
Then a post credit scene has him say how rich he is.
Does he not help out the family in any way?!
We don't know that he didn't ask or bought it off of them. Or helped them out with the debt. You're assuming that he didn't. Considering what we know of Winston, and how he was already helping out Ray, I'd think it's a fair assumption that he helped out Egon's family. It's weird that you just assumed he was an asshole.
My overall feeling of the movie, and you pointed this out Oliver, is that it pulled a "Force Awakens" and got alllllll that nostalgia out of the way along with setting up new characters. They have the fans latched on and ready to go, so I'm looking forward to what they do next. I would hope a sequel won't be as heavy handed with the references. In fact it seems they exhausted just about every reference in THIS movie. So with a sequel I hope they can stand on their own two feet and be more original.
But everything what Force awakens did right, this movie did wrong. Force awakens had just the right balance of feeling new and fresh. I enjoyed Force awakens….i hated Ghostbusters Afterlife…..
@@MoviegeekDutch force awakens sucked giant donkey balls my boy
Re roughly 18:50 - '89 wasn't on the wall in Shandor's mine as the events of II had nothing to do with Gozer.
I'm sorry but I couldn't take the discussion seriously when the one guy said it was the worst movie he'd ever seen in the cinema. Ghostbusters 2016? The last Die Hard? Tons of other examples? It wasn't the greatest movie but I thought it was a good sendoff to the original crew and jumping off point.
I'm not saying Gannon didn't have SOME legit criticisms, but to outright hate this movie...I just don't understand it. I'm trying really hard not to dislike his take on the movie. I just don't get it.
"New York was a character in itself" groan
Even mini puffs was problematic. Stay Puft was an embodiment of Gozer. What is up with them?
“YOU REMEMBER THIS!????……….Well that’ll be $20 please”
The Original Ghostbusters wasn't a kids movie! It was a mild Adult Comedy for the inner child in Us! Afterlife was made for those Adults Grandchildren!
Gannon hits the nail on the head, sadly. Frustratingly, the film gets so many aspects spot on, but then sabotages itself. I got the same feeling watching this as Raimi's Spider-man 3: enjoyable moments but key elements bafflingly underbaked and just don't work. At least they can't lean on the first movie this heavily again... the cartoon should've been the blueprint anyway.
The biggest problem to the plot for me is that Egon couldnt tell Ray Peter or Winston about the threat of Gozer returning! What?! Those three of anybody in the world are going to believe him after everything they have dealt with together especially Ray!!
I thought maybe they investigated together originally but Gozer was hiding the supernatural aspects that made Ray believe Egon was crazy. We don't see how that storyline was developed and it's honestly not a big deal unless you want to be nitpicky. It reminds me how for years people didn't understand why the Empire from Star Wars build such a major exploitable flaw in the Death Star only to be explained by the Rogue One film.
Sounds like Egon got the Luke Skywalker treatment.
It felt like an honest effort which is something I rarely feel about any film these days.
At near 36 I grew up seeing the movies on tape and playing with the toys while watching the cartoons which became a little extreme later on 👻
It was a little rehash but a welcome one.
PS As a child, I was scared of my Ghost Busters sleeping bag with all the monsters on it lol
Completely agree about the cold opening. I expected Afterlife to have some intro stinger and then the theme song would start. Really missed this. I hope there's an extended Director Cut of this film.
Jason already said he wouldn't
how it began was awesome. if you wanna watch that type of opening, rewatch the first one
@@gaglet the beginning was cool, but both GB1 and GB2 had the intro and then the theme music which really got you hooked. Afterlife should have opened with this style for the sake of consistency.
@@rkitchen69 i was hooked watching a main character die. consistency is boring esp on movie 3. rather it was different
@@gaglet I'm happy you enjoyed the film, even with its shortcomings.
I love these discussions between Oliver and Paul. I really hope they do another one when Frozen Empire comes out.
By the time the original cast returned, I was kinda hoping not to see them. I hate seeing characters from old movies, shuffling around as elderly people. Egon at the start, and as an invisible spirit, was fine. Ray on the phone was fine, if a little too grumpy.
Shoulda left it at that, or made it about the original cast from the start. It just felt like an awkward and unnecessary shift in tone. I also HATED the supermarket scene. It made little sense. Some random ghost possessed those marshmallows by pure coincidence? As some kind of tribute act? Gozer became a marshmallow once, and now can't take any other form? And the slapstick was pretty stupid, too. Like...slapstick in a ghostbusters movie is fine. But not from fucking GOZER!
But overall, it was good and had some cool ideas. It's a shame so meany people decided in advance that they were going to hate it or love it, purely based on where they stand on all the "woke" crap. Why is this movie even part of that discussion? People hated the 2016 one cus it was "woke", so they decided to love this one before even seeing it? (or the other way around) That's just stupid. For one thing: This movie is not an antidote to the 2016 one. That movie is still out there. It didn't go away.
It's still out there, and it still sucks balls 😆
2016 and Afterlife can both exist and can both be terrible to different ways.
That seems to be the case here. At the end of the day it’s just a new bunch of people trying to recapture something they can’t recapture.
impossible to argue with these faults... yet I drank it up. Highly enjoyable... maybe our enjoyment of art doesn't rely on logic, even the logic of the story. I wouldnt want them to do this again. They got away with it for me this once... importantly they have opened up a whole new universe. I think we can all agree corporate interests will not pressure the creators to just try to trot out the same movie again
Some of these precieved "flaws" are just unmet preferences than actual problems with the film. People need every single plot detail explained to them and lack any sort of imagination to fill in the gaps. It's honestly kind of sad how people just can't relax and need to find faults when micro analyzing everything.
@@jahimjauh-hey5653 they’re not really unmet preferences though, they are glaring logical flaws. It doesn’t matter because the film is highly enjoyable. Tbf I also find nitpicking a pain and some people revel in being smarter than the movie they are watching which is annoying, but when done right criticism helps give a rounded view of a product, so not inherently bad.
I'm with Oliver. I liked it, it's pleasant and fine, and it has more good things than bad things. There are issues but it's overall mood is less cynical than the 2016 version, and much more heartfelt. It's almost too schmaltzy for a Ghostbusters movie at times but I get that it's a loveletter. The Superman Returns contrast is spot on. That movie tried to tug on the same strings but didn't land at all with me. This one succeeds fairly well.
I recon the Walmart was lit up just to say "look at how good our effects are" like in American werewolf in London when the transformation played out in a well lit room.
This is a reboot of the franchise.
Need to reintroduce this world and bring everyone along. This way they can move forward with a clean slate
Dude your guest, Paul, would only have been happy if they made this movie for him and his 10 super fan friends. Afterlife is great popcorn fun, as it should be.
I don’t know if he feels safe enough to have 10 friends
Ray says to Phoebe on the phone that Egon did tell the others about the return of Goozer, but they didn't take him seriously. That's why he took off.
I dont think people watch ghostbusters for the office drama. They watch it to see ghosts get busted by characters they enjoy. Thats why this new ghostbusters movie delivered for me. I enjoyed the characters. I enjoyed the world. I enjoyed watching them bust some ghosts.
Sorry to resurrect this: I actually kinda enjoyed it more than the original. And that's exactly why: I don't care for the"Office Drama". It's why I loved the Terminal Reality Ghostbusters game so much. It was full of Ghost Busting.
He made some fair points. Especially the score. I've been arguing for years about why we should value more the underrated Randy Edelman! Thought Paul Rudd needed some scenes with the old cast. He's supposed to be this Ghostbusters super fan but I thought he ought to have been more nerdier and thereby slightly annoying as far as Dr Venkman would be concerned lol I think the film needed a new threat too besides all the Gozer stuff again. Having a new entity responsible for Egon's demise would have certainly ensured a new type of threat that would have surpassed Vigo's fan popularity. With all those corn and wheat fields in Summerville...Sam Hain might have fitted in quite perfectly to all this! (main villain of the Real Ghostbusters if you might be unfamiliar). Plus then you give the film a Halloween setting, different from the second's Christmas and New Year motif.
You both make some excellent points. I loved most of the film, flaws aside, but one thing I agree on is that the Wallmart scene should have had the lights off, to make it more suspenseful. Maybe start with the lights on and the mini puft starting to come out of the bag, followed by all of the other mini puft moments being cut, and the lights shutting off. Grooberson freaks out due to the puft and the darkness, so he starts to take off, only to round the corner and come across the terror dog. Instead of showing the multiple pufts arriving and bumping into his foot, you just have Grooberson stop around the corner, noticing the dog, and the dog reacting to Paul's footsteps. The rest of the scene plays out as is. That's how I would have cut it.
Wtf Paul Gannon?!? I am both happy and shocked at this appearance
This was an amazing discussion. Really good criticisms I never thought about.
are you american?
R.I.P. Harold Ramis and Ivan Reitman
Oliver & Paul: They're All That Stands Between You And The End Of The World 🚫
Ghostbusters is to me definitely very similar to Star Wars in how it was an unexpected lightning in a bottle hit that transcended it's own genre and appealed to mass audiences, and both are now burdened with a fanbase who will never agree on what the true "spirit" of the franchise is supposed to be. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't with this series no matter what you do. I think people would've been far more forgiving of this film if there had been an actual Ghostbusters 3 in the 90s or 00s, and this was just a spin-off into the next generation that introduced the same world to children. Some people seem annoyed that this isn't Ghostbusters 3, but I think anyone who's a fan of this franchise knows that Ghostbusters 3 was never going to happen because of Bill Murray. As far as reviving this franchise goes and opening it up to the possibilities of new installments with new characters, I think this was pretty darn good.
True, but watching The Last Jedi then following that up with Mandalorian, you see a completely different take on the universe. One is dogshit and the other one is great, and its pretty universal amongst the fanbase as to which is which.
1:07:37 My brother made one of the funniest I regret this quotes after seeing The Matrix Reloaded: “If I could have sex with that movie, I would.”
For Paul to say it’s the worst film he’s seen in a cinema means I’m not listening to a word he says. It’s not that bad, it’s ok, that’s it.
It's weird that I'm listening to a 1 hour review of a movie I have no intention to see.
wow
I’ve done that. The discussions are more interesting than the movies sometimes.
@@gzz8551 wow
@@gaglet
Who are you, Owen Wilson? 😲
@@gzz8551 he was the first person to use that word, how clever of you to notice that.
Totally agree with Paul re: Ramis. I've just got round to watching it and its absolutely ghoulish, and I hope SAG get on this reanimation stuff quick before we get Steve McQueen in Fast 12. The early shots in silhouetted profile where you can tell who it is but not a creepy puppet of a dearly departed actor, and the hand steadying Phoebe, if the Ramis estate are happy thats fine, but they shouldn't have been asked.
This film is better put together than 2016, no doubt, but I feel like 2016 gets added marks for trying to present something somewhat fresh, and Afterlife loses marks for ghoulish profiteering off the dead, bad characterisation and various plot holes and rehashes.
They're both worth watching though to pass a couple of hours, but you do leave Afterlife with a horrible taste in your mouth with the Egon force ghost.
2016 is a youngish family member trying to cook you a complicated meal and making a mess of it, edible but really not as nice as its supposed to be and if youre being harsh, a waste of ingredients. Afterlife is a McDonalds big mac meal. Nice, but not special, and it has a big Harold Ramis ghost shaped hair in it that puts you off the final bite.
Looking forward to someone new coming in and making a proper sequel though because the cast are pretty great.
I thought I was the only lifelong ghostbuster fan who watched the film opening night and felt this way. I went back to the theater, convinced a second viewing would change how I thought about the film, but it didn't.
I have a feeling that a second viewing would make me dislike the movie. I kind of liked it but there's a LOT of problems with it. There's a lot of good stuff, too, though. I don't know. I'll watch it again later but I think it's one of those movies where the bad parts will stick out more and more with each viewing.
Sounds like Paul had his own idea of what the film would be. I really enjoyed it, as did my 9 year old son.
He was expecting something totally different from what it is. He set his expectations too high, regardless of what he may say otherwise.
@@gokaury I think Paul has said in the past that he is more of a fan of the Real Ghostbusters cartoon than the films. Also I don’t think he realises how much Ivan Reitman had to do with creating the script for the original film. He was uncredited as a writer but it was his idea to make it about starting a business.
Completely agree with Gannon. The CG Harold Ramis ghost, to me, was far more offensive than anything the 2016 film did. I'm very happy to hear Ramis' daughter was fine with it. That's great to know. But the guy is dead, man. He had no consent to using his image whatsoever. One thing the 2016 film had was it at least existed on its own continuity and world so they had free reign to do whatever, however Afterlife is explicitly not only set in the original world and not only was it carrying the legacy of the first two films, but that's literally the whole plot of the film. And doing something that already is a highly controversial special effect used in films of using deceased actors' likenesses was not respecting the legacy at all. I was cringing watching that entire ending.
Also, Gozer AGAIN? Why not use the huge amount of ghosts from the Real/Extreme Ghostbusters? Remember Gozer, remember the terrordogs? Remember "there is no .... only Zuul"? Remember when you were watching a better film instead of a film that can't stand on its own?
Smallville
I disagree, the problem with Ghostbusters sequels are not the Ghostbusters concept, the problem is the people in fancy suites running the franchise, remember, in one point of history "everyone" truly believes that Batman was a dead property to Hollywood condemned to be a campy character for all eternity until Tim Burton arrived, and this "conception" of cheap justification of saying "is not posible to make another one" and "is not possible recreate that" is proved wrong repeatedly, people believe that a Lord of the Rings movie was imposible to film, say that Ridley, Banjo & Kazooie, Steve, Cloud, Zephirot and Sora will never be in Smash Bros, they say Fighting and beat them up games are dead.
If something fails is not evidence of being imposible to do, is more probably that was made in the wrong way.
Tiny towns in Oklahoma DO have Walmarts. In some towns, that's about ALL they have. I have seen them. Paul seriously overestimates what it takes to get a Walmart in America.
You guys are great - amazing content as usual Oliver
Anyone who says they weren't comfortable going out to see a movie because of the covid, I immediately throw out their opinion.
Saw ghostbusters afterlife the first time and liked it initially. I had a little chuckle and a tear. Lapped up the nostalgia and went away thinking it was at least better than the 2016 movie. I then saw it the second time and started to feel very differently about it. I doubt I will bother with it again. Mekenna Grace is good but she is just playing a young Sheldon? Also the amount of call backs even to the point where we are getting nostalgia from a crunch bar wrapper! It seems modern films are made to get as much money as possible out of it. What happened to having good characters, storyline and dialogue? I think I'm done with these modern franchise reboots. Not enough talent and art and more about how much they can make!!
I had the exact opposite reaction the second time around. I liked it more the second time watching it.
Regarding this too much fan service stuff- Are the fans not people who pay to see movies? So therefore shouldn't they expect to be catered to and satisfied? 🤷Maybe its just me
THE REBOOT WAS ONLY A SUPERGHOST COMEDY WITH SOME ERIE BITS BUT THIS IS A GRAND HORROR COMEDY LIKE THE FIRST TWO !
It was a cash grab & a name make.
I liked everything up to the "big ending". Way too much joking when they showed up. When Gozer says "Are you a god" I sat up because I thought Ray was going to say "YES", and they all open fire in triumph...but they made a joke out of it, and took the air out of the entire scene.
People including myself were clapping in the theater throughout the movie and especially at the end. It is very rare that I go to a movie and people actually get rounds of applause at the end.
That maybe happens once or twice within a 2-year period.
To me, that means something.
It must have been entertaining to some point-- even if it was kind of a lot of member berries throughout the movie.
For real. Who are you clapping for? Yourselves? Do you guys clap when you watch films at home? By yourselves?
I totally agree with you. It did what it needed to do, nothing more. And I loved it for that.
@@funkrobot9762 I clapped because I was entertained
@@terrealexander4442 applause is for the performers. The performers aren’t in the room with you lol. So you’re clapping for yourself being entertained. That shit is weird 🙃
You guys clap at the tv at home?
I read somewhere that Olivia Wilde was uncredited as Gozer.
I read it was Emma Portner? Having checked, Emma doubled for her CG form.
Just an FYI it seems it was Olivia Wilde. She's not credited but it seems theres confirmed reports she was one of two actresses who played Goozer. Simmons and Wilde are sort of odd cameos cause I feel they are two actors who should get bigger roles and would have been better in more larger roles in this franchise
I think Simmons was a favour to the director as he's worked with him on Juno. Olivia Wilde's might be a favour to Sony as they're letting her direct Spider-Woman
That last shot after seeing before Harold title card was not a badly film shot and that is not a random film shot that is the same shot from the first Ghostbusters film with Ray and Winston driving on the bridge talking about God and ghosts and the end of the world that shot is reminiscent of that scene is that scene use a very similar shot is purposely perfect it proves the Ghostbusters are back and for good I mean if something's fun bouncing and there's something strange in your neighborhood who you going to call
Ok, now I kinda wanna see it. Apparently opinions differ wildly and that makes me curious.
That's because it's either a good movie with a lot of bad parts in it or a bad movie with a lot of good parts in it. It depends on how you look at it (or want to look at it).
Gannon is in the vast minority. He had some good criticisms, but I guess this movie wasn't for him.
THIS FEELS LIKE A 80S FILM, MATRIX 4 FEELS LIKE A 90S FILM!!!!!!!!! PERFECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Red Letter Media's review sez it all!
it was olivia wilde
I heard it was Emma Portner?
@@OliverHarper I think that was her stunt double, imdb has been updated, Wilde is listed as uncredited
@@OliverHarper I believe it's both, Portner physically portrays her in spectral form I think, then Wilde was her in physical form and she was dubbed over by another actress
@@WilliamHaywardPainter Gozer's voice was dubbed by sexy mature Iranian actress Shohreh Aghdashloo (Chrisjen Avasarala on The Expanse, Admiral Paris in Star Trek Beyond).
@@DoctorPretorious616 Yes, that's her! I'd not heard of her before, to my dismay, but she's a great performer. Interestingly, Emma Portner and Elliot Page were together, and Page was in J. Reitman's Juno, one of my favourites
Considering we all have covid now, ghostbusters may have been a super spreader event!
I don’t believe Paul Gannon saw the same film as all of us? “Worst movie that he ever saw in a theater”? Please list all of the films that you have seen in one, sir.
I enjoyed this movie very well! Yes there was some plot holes but overall this was way better than the reboot in 2016
Loved this movie- and will see it again. It does have a few opportunities obviously (really agree that Egon would not just leave the Team)
It had way more heart than I expected.
Love this channel Oliver- thanks for doing it.
It is unfortunate that the "Egon leaving the team" wasn't explained better. But I could see it happening if egos got in the way. Remember, in the beginning of GB Egon is the one at the library taking readings (and he's the one who would have drilled a hole in his own head at another time, if he hadn't been stopped by Ray and Peter). Ray may be the heart of the Ghostbusters, but Egon is the technical one. The one slightly off kilter socially. The one who might go off to try his own experiments if, for whatever reason, Ray isn't willing to go along with it.
We had already seen in GBII that the team was capable of falling apart. Depending how circumstances, it's plausible that Egon might have gone solo on this. Perhaps, so involved in their own things, the others didn't want to take what he was saying seriously. A lot can happen to change attitudes in 40 years.
why wouldnt Egon leave the team? it was more that the team didnt follow Egon
It's not like the movie is collapsing under its own weight. If it's too dumb and shallow to fill a movie, it's not going to be better by stretching it over a 10 part series to "let it breathe".
Evolution is the 3rd GBs film in my world. Same format...just aliens instead of ghosts
That Guardian review of this film seems to be venting a lot of frustration about the film industry, and channeling it through this movie. I share those frustrations but bloody hell!
Stranger Ghosts, Thing Busters
MEH
They're not trying to create a freaking Universe with this if that was the case they would have had a new Ghostbusters longer ago before the reboot came out you see Ghostbusters reboot was a well-intentioned by the cast and director film that tried to make a universe this is a passion project in favor of Ivan Reitman to properly continue the story it is not a cash in or a it is a Perfection film
Fan service isn't a bad thing
This is the way I miss nerds disagreeing about fandom.
Tx guys.
:)
lolololol
Was Egon the bad guy since he led Phoebe to the trap that would cause her, and the teacher to release the demon dog, that would open the pit?
awww you're a sarcastic one aren't you? it's a kids film, don't think about it like that. it's aimed at 10 year olds...
I loved the movie. The only thing I disagree with Paul on is with Finn Wolfhard's character and the trap. He knew about it when they looked at the model of the house and asked his sister to explain it. That's the only this I disagree with you Paul.
I watched this film yesterday and I really enjoyed listening to this today. I had mixed feelings on the film and there are a lot of good points made here.
6:45 gentlemen . We can rest our case with this realization. Anything that tries to skirt around these being the main motivations is false. It's all money fellas if ya haven't caught on yet.
The glaring difference? It was just as dog eat dog for sure. It boils to, before we needed talent, now we need just marketing and a good handler. The public will go see "ASS" now, its on every channel.
25:22 I should have given you guys more room to breathe lol.
Yeah now were on to something. Sorry. I'm in the middle of moving , haven't had the proper time to assess.
i thought that Paul Rudd should have been Oscar (Dana's son)
I'm a big fan of Ghostbusters I was 10 when I saw it in the theater the sequel was ok but I just think that Ghostbusters is not a movie the cannot be franchised on the movie screen it's a product of the 80's and the writing by Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd really cannot consist duplicated.
You’re right. But the minute you can make a toy or any merchandise out of a movie the studios will forever be raping that “franchise”.
Smallville. TV. Show. The. Movie
I can't be upset about Harold Ramis being brought back because I think he would have approved. How can you be mad if he wouldn't have been?
Well that’s just total speculation.
“I think he would have approved”
Oh, do you yeah? That’s nice!
I felt exactly the same in most ways! Seems there's more people that love this than hate it, I deffo don't hate it.. I'm a 38 year old man child with all the toys and love GB, the cartoon and even GB2(im aware of its problems but still oozes classic GB vibe, pun intended) since mid 80s.
Going into this... Ray, Peter and Winston coming back and the whole "we gotta go to this small town to fix this problem" was what I was pumped about and actually ended up enjoying the indie film moments with new characters and hating them being in it. Aykroyd didn't feel like Ray and the back story was terrible. Ray's character is meant to be excited about supernatural! That's his thing.. Even in the face of sheer danger.. He's too bitter and also terribly acted IMO
The last scene was cringe, I don't get why people who are seemingly GB fans cried! But that's me. Overall not a bad film, wanna see it again as I enjoyed the first half at least. Why there was no scene of the originals calling each other or something instead of just arriving in the nick of time and looking awkward I do not know!
hi oliver harper good youtube channel about movie reviews . i understand paul gannon and say the truth about ghostbusters afterlife. we have ghostbusters 1984, the real ghostbusters 1986, ghostbusters 2 - 1989, ghostbusters- the video game 2009 is (ghostbusters 3) . better is wenn dan akroyd, bill murray, ivan reitman write script and make new ghostbusters- video game sequel. i think ghostbusters afterlife is just like extreme ghostbusters tv series
Venkman is not Sexist! Think about the card reading scene in the original 1984 movie. He was studying the effects of negative reinforcement on psychic ability. The girl was the control and the guy was the experiment. He was nice to her and mean to the guy, then the guy showed psychic ability, proving his theory.
Gannon 'Fan' ha ha, understatement of the year.
Wow so Paul Gannon is taking this a little too personally. Jesus dude, calm down.
Agreed . He's really overanalyzing the whole thing. As a life long fan, I really liked this film.
He said it’s the worst film he’s ever seen in a cinema. That’s total bullshit. Unless he’s only seen a couple movies in a theater. I really enjoyed the film and so did everyone in the cinema I watched it at. I don’t understand how a true ghostbusters fan could hate this movie.
Guys if you just take a moment to think about the setup of this film it falls completely apart. It’s not a coherent story. The story isn’t faithful to pre-established characters. Certain events and motivations integral to the plot don’t make sense.
I don’t see how you all can defend a film like this. This was such a wasted opportunity. Ridiculously bad story choices. Like….embarrassing. This film is embarrassing lol
@ren bao but it’s not though. I’m a fan. A huge fan. And I hated it. Just because it has references to the old shit doesn’t give it a pass on being a good movie. Do you pay money to see two hours of references? Or does the plot of the film actually matter to you? The plot of this movie makes NO SENSE.
It was a film all about Phoebe mostly
"This maybe the worst film that I've ever seen in the cinema" If thats truly the case then maybe you should get out more hon. lol I'm afraid I think you were expecting far too much from this, but luckily for the rest of us your views don't matter. :)
Quite enjoyed the movie, but it's very much "Ghostbusters awaken", a reboot/remake of the original: some good new characters, but too much of the movie is drenched in nostalgia sauce.
It pains me to say this. Jason Reitman is way more creative than what the movie turned out to be.
are you american?
If you can figure out why the Guardian rated it 1 star, then I can’t respect you anymore.
The audience in my showing this past weekend... They were fantastic! We all laughed at the comedy, we all really felt the emotional moments as well. Honestly it has been several years since I've had such a positive experience for a film, moreso than any of the Marvel films (yes Endgame included). I 100% loved this film, aside from feeling like the ghost of Harold Ramis was conspicuously silent (but I understand why).
Why does the audience matter to YOU?
@@gzz8551 The audience matters to me for a couple of reasons. The first, I saw this in a theatre, with other people, which has left me with a uniquely positive impression for my first experience of the film. When I think back to what I though of the film, and how it felt, I will have a biased view of the film based on first impressions. I personally found several moments to be funny, and entertaining, and I was not the only one reacting to those moments. That reinforces my own opinions of the film, by having others react in a similar manner.
The second reason builds off of the first, but rather than simply focusing on the psychological aspect of how watching a film with others made me feel personally, this reason reaches to my views on film as a whole in an analytical sense.
Film, is entertainment; whether it is intended to make the viewer laugh, cry, shit themselves out of fear, convey a message, get you to rethink a concept or institution, etc. Further, this form of entertainment is visual, auditory, and moving media. It is unique from a painting, or a book, even a stage play. With those factors identified, I then ask the question... Does the film take advantage of all the resources unique to film, to fulfill the ultimate goal of entertainment? If it entertains even one person, or a handful of persons, then it is a success in my book. It is a fact that there was a non insignificant number of audience members that were clearly entertained throughout the course of the film, they laughed, they cried, even cheered. That, sounds like entertainment to me.
Both of these reasons are why the audience mattered to me. My own personal reaction reinforced by others, feeling like part of a community of like minded souls, and fulfilling my own metrics of what makes a film successful.
I've learned to take a step back from the hate train, each of us has our own subjective reactions to watching something; we all see our own versions of reality. Some of us will enjoy something that another hates vehemently. Go for it, that is ultimately your opinion; the caveat is that you shouldn't then force others to see your opinion as objective truth (which is ironic as I put forth my own opinion as an object method of looking at things).
TL;DR
I wasn't the only one laughing, so it made me feel good to laugh with others. I feel a film is a success when it entertains even a few people, and more than half of the audience was certainly entertained.
@@DrewSwenson
It’s kinda sad that you need your opinion validated by everyone’s else reactions.
Fuck everyone else. If your the only person on earth that likes something then like it.
@@gzz8551 That isn't the case. I'm going to like what I'm going to like. I really enjoy the Live Action Bebop, and everyone hates it XD.
I loved Ghostbusters Afterlife, and I had a lot of fun sitting in a theatre that it seemed others enjoyed as well. Whether or not the audience laughed was not integral to my enjoyment, it was merely a plus. In terms of potential for a continuation of the franchise, the audience reaction bodes well for more films.
When did fan service become a crime?? ... These movies are made FOR their fans FFS, Any franchise movie worth a damn will have the fans in its mind first and foremost ...
Afterlife seems to have been hugely targeted by a lot of critics for this ... and I'm starting to see a pattern.
For this clown to say "It's the worst movie he has ever seen in a cinema" ... That might be the most farcical quote in movie review history.
Because it's a lazy shortcut to get fools to cheer. It has no creative merit, it serves no creative purpose, it's just there to push people's buttons. "I remember that! Yay!" Surely you have more self-respect than to be ok with being manipulated like that.
It's like making a meal taste better by dumping a load of sugar and salt into it instead of using good ingredients. You ought to be insulted by having gallons of fan service dumped over you. Not lapping it up and asking for more.
I don't want to see a Director's Cut. I want to see the Dan Aykroyd cut.
you're hard
A little disappointing but not a bad movie
Missed opportunity with this movie even if someone enjoyed it. The worst movie I've ever seen in a theater is the Eternals.
I watched it today and....... it's not the masterpiece people are making it out to be 😬
Also I prefer the 84 version of Gozer
Phew, Paul went for the jugular
Paul gannon needs to watch more films if he thinks this ghostbusters is the worst film he has ever seen lol