Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2020)

[Silver Nemesis]

It's official. It's finally happening. They're filming this summer for a 2020 release. Sony has already released the first official teaser.

Jason Reitman, son of Ivan Reitman, is directing. And it sounds like they're going to bring back the surviving cast members. It's been confirmed that this will take place in the same universe as the old films, cartoon show, comics and videogames and will completely ignore the 2016 abomination. Thank God.

To be frank, this is 25 years too late. Ghostbusters 3 should have come out in the early-mid nineties. The ship has sailed on the possibility of assembling the original four actors, and my fear is that this new film will amount to another hollow nostalgia-fuelled remake along the lines of The Force Awakens and Mary Poppins Returns. I also think Dan Aykroyd has a long way to go to win back the trust of the fans after he accused us all of being members of the KKK for not supporting the remake (he actually said that).

On the other hand, I've been waiting and begging for this film for as long as I can remember. The original Ghostbusters franchise is very, very special to me and was a major part of my childhood. Aykroyd teased us for years with hints about Ghostbusters 3, and it broke my heart when they finally shelved the project in favour of the woke remake. This movie may end up sucking, and I wish they'd made it when Ramis was still alive. But for now at least, I'm supporting Ghostbusters 3. As long as the original actors are back in their classic roles, I'll be there on opening weekend.

They've had enough time to get the script right, so they'd better not screw it up. And if nothing else, the existence of Ghostbusters 3 is the final nail in the coffin of Sony's Feigbusters.

But please, please, please keep it apolitical.

[thecolorsblend]

What is it with releasing Ghostbusters movies during American election years lately?

I somewhat agree with you. If they have a good story then I'll hope for the best. At this point, a big nostalgia fest is really all I want.

But there's the core audience of this movie to think about.

As you say, they were abused by Sony and even the original cast for the remake. Time heals all wounds. But this drama unfolded not very long ago. I don't think it's reasonable to believe the core audience of Ghostbusters 3 has forgotten or forgiven anything. Especially since they're STILL basking in the schadenfreude of the remake's abysmal failure.

Over and above all that, announcing the movie with a random teaser like that is certainly a shock & awe approach. Or it might be anyway. But another way of looking at it is that it's kind of a try-hard, arm-flailing attempt to grab attention over something that might not necessarily be a done deal just yet. Maybe there's an official announcement out there somewhere with specifics about cast, crew, release dates, etc, and somehow I just missed it. I'm speaking from no shortage of ignorance here.

But I can't shake the feeling that the unorthodox method of announcing a movie with a teaser made from seemingly third unit production with so little specificity has confused a lot more people than it has informed.

When more people are confused by your announcement than have been informed, it's safe to suggest that you might've done something wrong.

The movie might be good. Just stoke my nostalgia, skip the cultural Marxism and let's just have a good time here, Sony.

[The Dark Knight]

I also think Dan Aykroyd has a long way to go to win back the trust of the fans after he accused us all of being members of the KKK for not supporting the remake (he actually said that).

This is the issue for me. The brand went all in with Girlbusters. If the fans didn't like the new direction, they were sexist pigs that were best ignored. Sony trashed their consumer base well before Gillette's stance on 'toxic masculinity'. We can pretend Girlbusters didn't happen, and that would be for the best. But we know it did. A lot of bridges were burned over that sorry saga, and when it came down to it, the film tanked.

So now they come running back with this film to smooth things over. Admitting defeat and bowing to the will of the fans with presumably former cast members returning. If a new film HAD to be made, this is what the fans wanted in the first place. But why did they have to endure the pointless reboot in order to get here? The underlying mood that can't be shaken is that THIS WAS NOT THE STUDIO'S FIRST CHOICE FOR A NEW GHOSTBUSTERS FILM.

[Silver Nemesis]

The movie might be good. Just stoke my nostalgia, skip the cultural Marxism and let's just have a good time here, Sony.

That's all I ask. There's no reason whatsoever why this film should prove divisive. Be smart, Sony. Right now you've got our support. Don't throw it away.

So now they come running back with this film to smooth things over. Admitting defeat and bowing to the will of the fans with presumably former cast members returning. If a new film HAD to be made, this is what the fans wanted in the first place. But why did they have to endure the pointless reboot in order to get here? The underlying mood that can't be shaken is that THIS WAS NOT THE STUDIO'S FIRST CHOICE FOR A NEW GHOSTBUSTERS FILM.

This is all true, but I wonder if the dumpster fire that was Ghostbusters 2016 might not prove to be a good thing in the long run.

I remember back when Aykroyd and Ramis would regularly give updates on their ideas for Ghostbusters 3, most of which ended up being used in the 2009 videogame. Whenever they did this, the concepts generally revolved around the same plot points (the Ghostbusters going to hell, the older team members training a younger generation, Venkman being a ghost, etc). Then somewhere along the way the political agenda began creeping into Aykroyd's descriptions of the plot. At first the female Ghostbusters were meant to be the younger generation trained by the original line-up. Most fans were ok with that. Then it became a women-only line-up that excluded the originals. Then the agenda eradicated any vestige of the Aykroyd-Ramis GB3 and the movie became a hard reboot.

Well now we've got the agenda out of the way we can have a proper Ghostbusters movie, untainted by politics. If the 2016 reboot hadn't been made, then all of the terrible ideas from that film would have been forced into GB3. So maybe it was a necessary sacrifice to clear the path for GB3?

[The Dark Knight]

Continuity can be ignored, ala what Superman Returns sought to do by ignoring Superman 3. But the Ghostbusters fanbase is nonetheless lucky that Girlbusters was a reboot. Having that abomination as a legitimate in universe follow on (with canon appearances by former cast members) would have been a much bigger insult. As it stands, Girlbusters exists in the void of a seperate universe. Ghostbusters 3 can be made without any of those other events having ever happened.

[Edd Grayson]

Sigourney Weaver Returning for 'Ghostbusters' Sequel in 2020, Bill Murray Seemingly Involved Too

https://www.slashfilm.com/sigourney-weaver-in-the-ghostbusters-sequel/

[Silver Nemesis]

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have major concerns about this film, but it looks a lot better than the 2016 abomination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahZFCF--uRY&feature=emb_logo

Best part of the trailer: "There hasn't been a ghost sighting in 30 years." Which means Feigbusters is confirmed as apocryphal.

I'm still very much on the fence with this one, but I really want it to be good. As a lifelong Ghostbusters fan, it's been depressing watching what Sony has done to the franchise in the last few years. This probably won't make up for that, but maybe it will surprise us.

[thecolorsblend]

This may be the best that's possible at this point. We're missing a man here and Murray has always demurred on another one.

And let's face it. Ghostbusters II isn't bad but it's not the classic that the original was. So a nostalgia trip is not only impossible but it'd be unlikely even if it was possible.

This looks like it honors what came before while kicking the story forward. The trailer doesn't indicate any significant amount of cultural Marxism so we're off to a decent start here. I can think of quite a lot of franchises I'm less enthused about right this moment.

[The Dark Knight]

This looks like it honors what came before while kicking the story forward. The trailer doesn't indicate any significant amount of cultural Marxism so we're off to a decent start here. I can think of quite a lot of franchises I'm less enthused about right this moment.

I think this sets things up for the future nicely, if they choose to continue past this point. The story can always be taken back to New York, but this could also be its own standalone thing as well. Either would be fine. I like how the trailer pays tribute to the past in a mythic, respectful way. The archive footage of the original four from the newsreel would be enough to send a shiver up the spines of fans. I like the atmosphere they're going for here.

[Travesty]

I'm totally down for this, and I think this is the best direction they could take it. I like how it wont be in Manhattan, so it wont feel like another remake. Everyone complained the GB2 was a remake of the first one. Everyone complained that GB16 was basically another remake of the first one(but in a cartoony/Scooby Doo style). This looks like a new take on the GB, but in a completely different setting, completely different cast, but is still in the same universe as the first. Again, this is the best direction they could take it. People are wanting more GBs, but don't want to see another remake of the first. This looks to be doing that.

I'm totally down for this. Hope it's good.