Ghostbusters: Afterlife is munching up the money
Jason Reitman's ode to his dad's old franchise is expected to bring in a better-than-projected $40 million this weekend
Aux News Ghostbusters
It’s never been entirely clear how lucrative ghost busting is, as a business. Sure, Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray charged a pretty penny for hotel de-ghosting back in the day, but it’s not like backpack-mounted particle accelerators come cheap. And the fact that the entire planet seems to forget about the proven existence of the afterlife in this universe every couple of years can’t help the word-of-mouth side of things.
The Ghostbusters business, meanwhile, has been a lot more straightforward: All three extant movies in the franchise have made between $200 million and $300 million at the box office—a feat that was a lot more impressive in 1984 than it was in 1989, and way more so than the lackluster blockbuster showing that Paul Feig’s movie got in 2016.
Enter, then, Jason Reitman’s new nostalgia exercise Ghostbusters: Afterlife, which opened in theaters this weekend, and looks to be facing a better-than-expected opening engagement. THR reports that the film is expected to beat projections and bring in $40 million this weekend. That’s not huge, even by COVID numbers—big performers like Venom and No Time To Die opened in the $50 million to $70 million range—but it’s still going to make it the top performer of the weekend as we head toward Thanksgiving.
The most positive news here, for the film industry as a whole, is that Reitman’s film appears to be the kid-catcher that Clifford, the large red dog-monster, failed to be. Maybe it’s the recent approval of COVID-19 vaccines for kids age 5 and up; maybe it’s just that Reitman has finally given this very adult franchise the child-forward treatment its marketing department has been begging for since the first Ecto-1 toy got sold; either way, families are coming out for this thing, and families move movie tickets.
(The more adult-focused King Richard, meanwhile, is doing quite a bit worse, opening to a $1.9 million Friday, and expected to under-performer to the tune of $5.5 million. Maybe kids prefer to watch their inspirational tennis dramas on HBO Max.)
Ghostbusters: Afterlife stars Carrie Coon, Paul Rudd, Finn Wolfhard, and Mckenna Grace, and—we feel obligated to eternally note—heavily features a child who insists that people call him “Podcast.”
97 Comments
This both depressing and not shocking. Oh boy can’t wait for the sequel that nostalgia baits even harder.
Actually not sure this one left anything TO nostalgia bait harder unless they wanna go all in on the sequel’s slime.
Oh there isn’t anything left to plunder. Maybe dig up the Real Ghostbusters TV show and Ecto Cooler.
Even odds the sequel will involve Dana’s son and Vigo or some horseshit.
Vigo played by Benedict Cumberbatch, of course.
Of course. But motion capture.
Naaaah it’ll be a wordless cameo by a cgi Max Von Seedow despite being only the voice originally.
But please, bring back Peter MacNicol to says something like “Why am I dripping with goo?”.
or louis tully’s kid, because why tf not?
“My dad turned into a dog once and they helped him.”
What’s Janosz up to these days? You WILL pay to find out, goddamnit!
I can’t wait for the inevitable long-delayed sequel to this movie by Ivan Reitman’s grandson that’ll hit theaters in 2048, featuring a now-decrepit Finn Wolfhard and a still-youthful-looking Paul Rudd.
I thought Paul Rudd looked significantly older in Afterlife than he did in Halloween 6 which I watched a couple of weeks earlier. I’m bustin’ this myth!
Which is to say; take that Paul Rudd, at some point over a period of 25 years, you aged somewhat!
You really can’t afford to skip those life-extending blood sacrifice rituals, not even for just a month.
It will turn out to be a documentary, and a plea to the government to develop the real-life ghostbusting technology needed to destroy life-sucking phantasm Paul Rudd.
The one film of hers I actually like is “Destroyer”, but I think Karyn Kusama might be a good fit to direct it. Jason Reitman was a producer on one of her films, she’s done more horror than him, and even blended horror with comedy in Jennifer’s Body (which was not unjustly derided at the time, Diablo Cody’s writing had yet to mature). Now that the family-dramedy aspect that interests Jason has been dealt with in introducing the characters, they can try making something more focused on spooky ghosts that kids will watch because they saw the previous film and want to follow the characters on more adventures.
Lighten up, Francis
You have used one of my favorite movie quotes against me AND there’s a Harold Ramis connection. You got me.
I love that a bunch of oldies are upset because this is a kids movie and kids seem to be liking it. It’s hilarious. And people pumping up the horrible 2016 movie as a reason to hate on this one is even funnier.
I haven’t really seen anyone upset about that. I thought it needed to commit to either being a modern Amblin kids movie or a nostalgia-fest for old dudes because as it was it didn’t really completely satisfy in either direction.
Completely satisfying is not something that many movies achieve. It was adequately satisfying.
I don’t think we saw the same movie. It managed.tonbalance both aspects wonderfully in my opinion.
Nah, the toxic “oldie” GB fans are eating this shit up because it features the OG cast and because they spent the last five years hating the 2016 version so much they’ve convinced themselves this’ll be the second coming even if it blows (which it probably does.)
Its The Rise of Skywalker again.
Perhaps. But I thought the one thing that united ALL of SW fandom, including toxic elements, was universal loathing for Rise of Skywalker. Is that not the case? Are there some TLJ haters out there who actually pretend it’s good?
I mean more its subtly giving the assholes what they want. Same vain as throwing Rose to the side and making Luke idealistic again. It just seems the fans like Afterlife more then Rise of Skywalker despite quality being comparable.
Oh, yes. It’s absolutely exactly the same in that regard!!
Plenty of non assholes wanted Luke to be idealistic and didn’t like Rose or he scuppering of Finn’s heroism. Though I imagine the ones who also think Rise of Skywalker is good are the asshole subset.
They also have in common “giving a granddaughter to a character no one wants to picture having sex”.
Personally, I feel disconnected from most Star Wars fans because I like all the sequels. There are very few places on the Internet where you can actually talk about them without unleashing some sort of toxic bullshit.
Hey, feeling disconnected from SW fans is probably a good place to be!Check out the “Non Toxic SW fans” group on facebook. It’s soooo non-toxic (basically everyone loves every piece of SW content unconditionally, all the time) that I got perma-banned from it twice for the crime of politely disagreeing with a moderator over something completely innocent.
Probably, it just makes me sad seeing people so unhappy from movies I thought were really fun. But I also get it because I hated the prequels. I might check it out, so far I just check in on r/thesequels on reddit for an occasional dose of positive feedback.
“I got perma-banned from it twice”Not meaning to be pedantic but I just have to ask …
Which part are you asking about?
Ironically the last part sounds quite toxic.
Apparently it was.
You are correct. “Rise of Skywalker” brought us all together in a way that no political ideology ever could. People will defend the prequels (not me) and “Solo” (me) and any of the TV shows. Everybody agrees that the last “Star Wars” movie is easily and indisputably the worst “Star Wars” movie.
Hey I’ll jump on that Solo train with you— I quite liked it for what it was. I don’t know what people were really expecting with that one.
“People will defend the prequels (not me)”.You’ve got your head screwed on right.“[A]nd “Solo” (me)”.You’re worse than a million Hitlers!
I know some folks that love both TLJ and TROS.I don’t get it either. They’re both terrible.
I concur.
Both had good single scenes (Huldo’s sacrifice) and some good ideas (The first time rain carries over between Kylo and Rey’s connection) but were barely coherent in the long run.
Honestly, one of the biggest problems with modern Star Wars is that they’re still sticking to the trilogy format for story arcs when they probably could’ve wound up with two decent/good films if they split Rise of Skywalker and actually fleshed out the storyline instead of rushing everything.
I hate TLJ , but Rise isnt great either.
The dead speak!It all checks out.
Rise of Skywalker was “trying” to do fan service and failed right out of the gate with “somehow, the emperor survived.” If you’re gonna service the fans, don’t be lazy about it, go all in.
It goes to point A to point B to point C to point D to point E with no explanation at all and entirely too quickly?I was not as high on The Last Jedi as others and can be vulnerable to fan service (see: Endgame) but The Rise of Skywalker was just… oh god, it was so, so bad. Things just happened with no explanation, the fan service was just shoved in there with no subtlety, or cleverness, or purpose.
tOxIc
You are all toxic on here arguing over Ghostbusters movies.
The 2016 movie was unfunny garbage mostly built on sexist jokes. I found it to be unwatchable and I usually enjoy the movies with the Actresses in it. So continue to blame men for hating a bad movie.
It was good, but…I liked the ’16 film too.
Apparently you’re not allowed to like both.
I know this is the evil art of “both sidesing”, but honestly the two films are more similar than a lot of people are willing to admit;
. “Afterlife is true to the spirit of the original film!”; and the film about three SNL comedians and a character actor chasing ghosts in New York wasn’t?
. “2016 has the power to inspire little girls!”; and the film about a little girl doesn’t?
. “Afterlife is full of nostalgic pandering!”; and the film with the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man balloon, prominent cameos from five members of the original cast and Slimer, animated logo, fire station callbacks, theme song remake and dialogue quotes wasn’t?
. “The bust of Harold Ramis in the 2016 movie was a much more appropriate and charming tribute”; OK, one side is right on this one.
It’s a good movie. Just quit listening to media people who are angry the lousy 2016 movie flopped, and go see a movie about four kids who battle evil ghosts. It’s Stranger Things Meets Ghostbusters, with a strong dose of Spielberg. The premise endures, remixed for forty years later.
…no?
Riiiiight, it’s a kids’ movie. Because if there’s one thing kids love, it’s nostalgia-baiting sequels to 1980’s comedies. Yes, there’s three things today’s kids can’t get enough of: the Tiktoks, the Fortnite, and Bill Murray vehicles that came out 30 years before they were born.
Oddly enough , my son has been looking forward to Afterlife since the first trailer
2016 was fun. It was a fun romp with hilarious ladies that are fun to watch on a glowing rectangle. It was cool to see women be bad-ass without also looking like a “fighting fuck-toy.” It was hilarious to see McKinnon let her queer-lady-charisma shine to the fullest.
Was it a GREAT movie? I dunno. But it wasn’t “horrible.” At worst it was just a mediocre comedy. But it was also never supposed to be anything groundbreaking. It was supposed to be something fun to see at the ol’ AMC, which it was. Online dipshits built it up to be something both more and LESS than it was. (Incidentally, those same online dipshits are now the ones claiming trans people are simultaneously an insignificant minority not to be catered to and a powerful lobby pulling all the strings. It’s all one big right wing grift.)
I found GB ‘16 to be mildly funny, watchable and forgettable. Better than the vast majority of remakes, but ultimately pointless.
I think 2016’s biggest issue was sticking with standard McCarthy physical comedy while refusing to develop the villain. The way things like Bill Murray’s cameo were executed detracted more than they added.
I mean this is a reasonable critique that I see coming from almost none of the people who harbor disdain for it. I think I agree re: Bill Murray’s cameo; it was there to be a cameo and nothing more. Which is fine. Like I said, it wasn’t trying to be the pinnacle of storytelling.
I liked GB16 too. If the goal was “have fun with the basic concept of zapping ghosts”, as far as I’m concerned, mission accomplished.
GB 2016’s problem was the problem with most of Paul Feig’s comedies: he made it in the editing room. They went in with a barebones script, he pointed his camera and basically said “improvise”, and let that go on for just a bit too long in ever scene.
The whole thing was edited together by running previews and getting feedback, then re-editing. So it’s a sort of Frankenstein’s monster of a film that doesn’t say anything or do anything, and is pretty pre-defensive about itself.
I also didn’t find it to be very funny, but that’s largely a comedy taste issue. If the rest of the film had been structurally sound, that wouldn’t have matter much.
I love it too that every single one of the replies to your comment inadvertently proved you correct in the most smarmiest way. The commentariat here can’t get any worse.
I’m not upset that the new one is a kids movie, that is totally fine, but the fact they are trying to reframe it as if the original was strictly kids fare is driving me crazy. There’s a mensuration joke less than five minutes in!
“Adults mad at a kid’s movie” has been in overdrive since The Phantom Menace.
I think I’m upset that they forgot that Ghostbusters is a comedy where Dan Aykroyd gets blown by a ghost. Really though I found CGI Harold Ramis so extremely distasteful that up until that point I thought not for me but I don’t entirely hate it.
Lots of kids publicly sharing their thoughts on this movie, are they? Completely unrelated question: How many times have you used the word “woke” in the past week? Just asking. Be honest.
That old Ghostbusters cartoon was really horrible. Terrible animation. The old Beetlejuice cartoon was pretty good though.
Terrible!? It had a gorilla named “Tracy” driving a car while the character named “Kong” was a human! That’s genius!
The gorilla’s the smart one!
Like most American 80s cartoons, the animation was outsourced to Asia, mostly Japan, and DIC, who made the cartoon, went a step or two further than most by outsourcing the storyboarding and other pre-production processes as well, so episodes that were made by companies like TMS had the core benefits and drawbacks of TV anime at the time; very strong individual drawings and very limited movement. In the last couple of seasons they outsourced the animation to much cheaper and less experienced studios in South Korea, which looked awful, and in tandem with Haim Saban and Shuki Levy’s music cues being retired and the watering down that had already started in the previous few seasons, it no longer really felt like the same show. No, I don’t think I know too much about this, why do you ask?
The Real Ghostbusters is actually shockingly solid, though, especially when held up against it’s contemporaries. Didn’t hurt that J. Michael Straczynski was the showrunner.
Up until it became Slimer and The Real Ghostbusters than it was mainly bad with a couple of gems here and there (Jeanine You’ve Changed, the Russian Cthulhu one, etc)
Hang on , do you mean the Ghostbusters cartoon (with the ape), or The Real Ghostbusters?‘Real’ was pretty damn good for an 80s cartoon ,at the least the first few seasons when it was had J. Michael Straczynski as a showrunner.
So Afterlife is deemed a hit after reaching a $40 million weekend total, which is…$6 million *less* than the previous Ghostbusters film, yet that one is still branded as a flop.Has Covid changed things that much or is this just a good old fashioned double standard? Probably a bit of both, but it’s worth pointing out.
The 2016 film had a reported budget of almost double this one which didn’t help things, especially given that film didn’t gross even double its budget.
Has Covid changed things that much…?
The short answer is yes. Unadjusted for inflation, the top five opening weekends of 2016 ran from $132 million to around $179 million. The top five opening weekends of 2021 ran from $70 million to around $90 million.
Well take into account one film cost 150mil plus marketing and the other 75mil plus marketing.
It’s def COVID. People are desperate for pre-COVID distractions so the studios are going to churn out as many reboots as they can before ticket buyers grow cold again and lose that warm, dreamy belief that things will be ok. Also, it’s a way for people to ‘go out’ while maintaining some dark distance from other humans; at least they’re trying to figure out how to behave again.
But the movie was made before COVID. It’s had to be delayed a few times.
COVID
The 2016 reboot cost 145 million dollars to produce… Afterlife only cost 75 million. It will have an easy time making its budget back, whereas the 2016 one lost a lot of money for the studio. That’s why it’s considered a flop, regardless of whether it had a slightly better opening weekend.
The first film cost around $145 million, and this one was $75 (both before advertising.) It’s a lower bar to reach to count as a “hit” when you came in at half the budget. So 6 million less on 1/2 the budget? Covid didn’t change math.
this is, no doubt, because of Gregg Turkington’s groundbreaking turn as Muncher. I hope Ivan Reitman and the Academy remember this when it’s time to award Oscer Gold!!
I am a hardcore ghostbusters fan and I love the fact that I could bring my 6 yo daughter to watch this movie. I could relive my childhood while my kid is introduced to the ghost busters mythos. For the record I did not go see the 2016 film.
AVClub hipsters and GB2016 stans losing their minds
No one ever accused America of having taste.
AVC contributors may be too cool for a movie centered around kids, but I enjoyed it. The ending felt a little forced, but in a book it wouldn’t have, so that’s more a matter of different mediums having different tolerances for suspension of disbelief. Otherwise, I enjoyed the characters and story. I’m not going to let ~5 minutes of CG ruin the rest of the film for me.
finally a review that doesn’t rely on “yeah but it’s nostalgia” as a justification for liking it….comparing it to a book makes me want to see it more than most reviews already.
It’s clearly a film dealing with legacy and heavily influenced by Jason Reitman’s experience of being a child on the set of the original.
If you can enjoy a movie *about* kids without dismissing it as “a kids movie,” you’ll probably be okay with it. I’d put it somewhere between Moonrise Kingdom and Super 8, conceptually.
I saw it last night with my husband and our 19 year old daughter who was home from college. We all found it sweet and nice. It moved reasonably quickly, which was also a plus. The little girl was quite good and believable as Spengler’s granddaughter. The only thing that stretched credulity is that you would move to a town in the middle of nowhere, find Paul Rudd as the rakishly handsome summer school teacher, and he’s single.I don’t need every movie to blow me away. Sometimes sweet and nice is what I need.
I will add that I am a huge fan of the original. I saw it in the theaters the weekend it opened (I’m old). I knew I was not going to get that, and it would be silly to expect it. I got a loving homage to the original, and I’m OK with that.
I don’t think it’s ‘being an old guy’ to just wish they left well enough alone… The 2016 movie was terrible, but it’s more to me that people didn’t understand why the first one worked. I saw the latest one with my little guy last night, and he definitely enjoyed it more than me. I can see this version working because it’s going to appeal to the kids, where I don’t know who the target was for the 2016 movie. I’m not against reboots or remakes in general, but Ghostbusters was point in time stuff… It worked because slacker Bill Murray was in his prime. I know then we all watched the cartoon, but even the cartoon wouldn’t have worked without Lorenzo music. I hope they never remake stripes. They shouldn’t have tried to remake dirty rotten scoundrels. People don’t love these movies because of the premise, they love them because of the specific actors. It’s not just female driven reboots, total recall was awful too. Even though the story is cool you can’t divorce it from Arnold, add if people not familiar with the original didn’t like the new one, it’s even more clear that Arnold was the most important ingredient.Accuse me of being an old man I guess…I don’t think my opinion is unreasonable.
Oh no, the AVClub literati is unhappy that a movie they deemed not worthy is making some money. How will the world continue to spin?
Ghostbusters was a perfect movie. Ghostbusters 2, the cartoons, and GB2016 were all “fine.” I’m sure this will be “fine” as well. Let’s stop treating this franchise as a whole like it deserves some kind of reverence because they struck gold once 40 years ago.
Saw it under favorable conditions AKA at a drive-in on edibles and my adorable little dog Mayday on my lap and the only nice thing I can say is Ernie Hudson looks way younger than 75.
it hasn’t been done that much, but there’s NOSTALGIA CA$H-INS and CONTINUATIONS of stories…meaning “remember this nudge nudge” and “here’s the next chapter to the story”. T2 was one of the first sequels to pull that off. Blade Runner 2049 wasn’t so harsh. Hell, even Toy Story did it, THREE TIMES in a row! I’ll even give it to the Ice Age franchise…
So where’s this one falls on the spectrum? *shrugs* hopefully not like Blue Brothers 2000, Home Alone 2, Star Wars 7 or Jurassic World…call back after call back that despite new characters is a rehash…or even how Terminator 3 brought nothing new to the table and blandly told the story of Judgement Day coming true…
Ok now I’m rambling. But will Hollywood ever “get it”?????????
Wow, they’re really sticking it to that ‘Ghostbusters: Afterlife’ guy. He must work there or something.