Revered Spengler saga heads to New York for Ghostbusters: Afterlife sequel
Because busting makes everyone feel good, there's also a new Ghostbusters animated movie on the way
Aux News Ghostbusters
Ghostbusters movies are like poetry; they rhyme. Every stanza rhymes with the last one, with the demons of one generation haunting the next. It was true of the Skywalkers, and now, it’s true of the Spenglers, one of the seminal families of fantasy and science fiction. And the Spengler saga will continue just as Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd intended for their little comedy about a team of ghost exterminators for whom busting feels good.
Fans hear echoes of the past throughout the extended Ghostbusters Cinematic Universe (GCU). In Ghostbusters: Afterlife, the daughter and granddaughter of deadbeat dad Egon Spangler maintain the family legacy by fighting whatever Ghostbusters reference randomly asserts itself upon the plot. And because nothing ends and all stories must continue until they’re simply repeating lines and beats from what came before in a never-ending feedback loop designed to make viewers happy that they recognized something, more Ghostbusters sequels and spin-offs are on the way.
Yesterday was apparently Ghostbusters Day, one of those holidays we assume Hallmark created to sell greeting cards and announce Ghostbusters stuff. To cap off the day, commemorated by a keynote address during which Sony rattled off upcoming Ghostbusters ephemera, Afterlife director Jason Reitman announced that the live-action sequel has a codename: “Firehouse.”
The Firehouse looms large in Ghostbusters. Not only was it the setting for the first two Ghostbusters movies, but also, it was one of the franchise’s most popular toys. “We’re writing another movie. Tonight, we’re going to share the code name for the next chapter in the Spengler family story,” Reitman said. “The last time we saw Ecto-1, it was driving back into Manhattan: the home of Ghostbusters. That’s where our story begins. The code name is FIREHOUSE.” So that explains the baffling final shot from Ghostbusters: Afterlife.
Reitman previously took the Spenglers out of their NYC comfort zone because he had a vision of the Ecto-1 driving in a cornfield. So it makes sense that they would return home, seeing as the New York energy was a big part of the original movie’s success—also, filling the emptiest town in Oklahoma with Easter eggs didn’t add much to the series.
There will also be a new Ghostbusters animated movie, so we can go deeper into that Ivo Shandor-based mythology. There’s even less information on that one, but we assume it will connect to the Ghostbusters animated series announced yesterday.
So happy belated Ghostbusters Day! There’s a ton of Ghostbusters stuff coming, yet there’s still no mention of a spin-off involving that ghost that gives Ray Stantz a blowjob in the first movie. How is that ghost connected to Ivo Shandor? Do they know Viggo the Carpathian? The fans demand answers!
[via Variety]
49 Comments
Industrialized nostalgia.
Nah, this is Sony, not DisneyCorp. It’s more like Amazon seller storefront nostalgia (4.5 out of 5 stars).
I despise everyone who hated on the 2016 Ghostbusters based on the casting alone but reveres the dreck that was Afterlife and willingly goes along with this absurd reverence for the franchise.
If they’re just writing rather than filming it, then there’s still time for Reitman (unfortunately I can just refer to him by last name now) to take my advice and just produce while Karyn Kusama directs since they’ve had that arrangement before and she has more experience with actual horror. The kids who saw the previous movie will now be a little older and should be able to handle something scarier and less schmaltzy.
Kids saw the last movie?
That’s why they cast the kid from Stranger Things. It certainly wasn’t because there was much in the script for that character.
Oh, I thought they cast the kid from Stranger Things so they could go “hey you know that OTHER nostalgia bait thing you like? Well we’re connected to it!”
It’s based on literally a small sample size, but in terms of teaching grade 7s: maybe 1 saw or talked about Ghostbusters, at allThey all fuckin’ LOVE the sonic the hedgehog movies.
Bring back Holtzmann.
Akroyd was Multiverse before MCU. Let’s do this.
What is this article? “So, these – UGH – Losers who like a franchise are getting more products from that franchise – including things like movies and cartoons! UGHHHHHHH! Who even Wants those things?”
Pretty much sums it up. I haven’t seen any Ghostbusters media except for the original film, precisely because it all looks to be coasting on the goodwill of that first movie, and the tone of this article struck me as ridiculously condescending and mean-spirited.But I’m sure Matt watches only the finest films crafted with care by devoted auteurs fighting studio interference every step of the way and refusing to water down their artistic vision with mercenary sequels, prequels, spin-offs, reboots, adaptations, merchandise, tie-ins, or promotions, so he’s earned the right to look down on mere plebeian moviegoers.
Couldn’t even be bothered to spell Vigo’s name right.
Yep, it’s a perfectly poetic match of caliber of writer to caliber of franchise.
Let’s not conflate people who are fans of Ghostbusters with people who want a Ghostbusters: Afterlife sequel.
I am a Ghostbusters fan of a level that is hard to equal, but even if you enjoy it anyway, Afterlife is a bad movie that mistakes dramatic shots of dusty props for a story.
The problem I have with these movies is not their obsession with triggering nostalgia, it’s their obsession with triggering deep and crippling existential horror. Like: when people look at a movie like Ghostbusters Afterlife and don’t see pure capitalist machinery, instead choosing (yes choosing) to believe there is some kind of emotional or ideological core to the film, it really makes me feel like I don’t belong in Earth. How do they do it? How do they delude themselves like this? Do they look at McDonalds cheeseburgers and tell themselves they’re made with care from a recipe written by a passionate chef? Do they buy clothes made by Bangladeshi children and tell themselves that they were designed out of an artistic or aesthetic imperative? And when they learn there’s a sequel to Ghostbusters Afterlife, having already watched the first Ghostbusters Afterlife, how the HECK do they trick themselves a second time? Ghostbusters Afterlife truly is the scariest movie of all time, insofar as it removes your belief in grace and ingenuity and it will permanently and irreversibly destroy any belief you had that human beings can make good-faith, constructive choices. It’s the climate change of movies.
Just imagine how the Russians wage war. They rape your daughter and elderly mother. They kill everyone around you. They loot your city, they sell your exports for themselves, they destroy every building in your town so there will be only subsistence living for generations to come. Then they say “this is reality”, and as long as you shrug you’ll stay sane. If you resist you’ll never stop weeping. That’s the Ghostbusters movies.
Someone should cgi the Ghostbusters hearse car into Come And See
If you’ve never had a burger from McDonald’s and just enjoyed that piece of shit for what it is, I don’t know what to tell you.
I made no comment about the ability to derive joy from trash.
Try removing the stick up your butt.
Yeah! Nostalgia for ghost movies is SERIOUS BUSINESS! Stop being so facetious about it!
mmmmmm. that’s not what they said. “Do they look at McDonalds cheeseburgers and tell themselves they’re made with care from a recipe written by a passionate chef?” I love mcdonalds, I just know exactly what it is I’m getting.
Yeah, exactly. That’s my point.The answer to every “Do they…?” in there is probably no. Why ascribe a very particular assumption (“THEY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THERE IS EMOTIONAL DEPTH RATHER THAN HOLLOW CAPITALIST MACHINATIONS”) to viewers as opposed to assuming people enjoying it are doing it for their own reasons?I’m just being a pissant here, for the record. I’ve never seen any of the Ghostbusters and I wasn’t going to start with this one.
Yeah, if a McDonald’s burger is an enjoyable facsimile of a real gourmet burger made of pure capitalism, than I don’t know what the deal is with finding entertainment value from the constructed parts in a purely capitalistic cinematic experience when those parts are crafted specifically to resemble real art. I did watch Ghostbusters: Afterlife, and while I wasn’t terribly impressed, it was still a movie with likeable characters who experienced feelings. If I can enjoy fast food well enough without constantly being reminded of Michelin star meals that I’ve eaten, I don’t see why I can’t enjoy an “emotional core” in some C- garbage so long as I don’t think about all the times I’ve watched The Princess Bride or whatever.As far as capitalistic enterprises go, the only difference between Ghostbusters and your average MCU flick is that it’s not as good. But only the deadest-eyed critics of the MCU deny its fans their right to enjoy those movies.
Like: when people look at a movie like Ghostbusters Afterlife and don’t see pure capitalist machinery, instead choosing (yes choosing) to believe there is some kind of emotional or ideological core to the filmIs anyone really doing anything like that, though? I haven’t seen the movie myself, but I also haven’t seen anyone trying to make a case that Actually It’s Really Deep Art. Far as I can tell the most positive reception this movie has received is “Eh, it’s got the Ghostbusters logo on it and I don’t hate it”.
Still waiting for the Slimer origin story
Slimer is obviously the ghost of a fat retarded kid who died from a fall into some toxic slime.
I recently watched the Honest Trailer for Ghostbusters: Afterlife. I know Honest Trailers play up the bad stuff, but the movie looks pretty awful, really unfunny, and really nostalgia-centric instead of prioritising telling a good story.
Does this seem right?
I can’t bring myself to watch it but I watched the ghost egon scenei somehow did not vomit
It’s about 50-75% that bad, but there’s a few scenes that work – mostly when they’re actually busting ghosts, because it doesn’t get bogged down in either cloying nostalgia or “hey, hey, remember that thing from the original movie? Wasn’t that great?”It’ll be all but forgotten in five years.
Forgotten… until the sequel comes along.
Well, unlike the painfully non-funny 2016 entry, Afterlife isn’t a comedy; it’s an 8-12-year-old’s adventure flick. (I’m not even sure what made it a PG-13 and not a PG.) And, the thing is, a kid’s adventure flick is pretty hard to not make a reasonably okay movie out of. So… for what it is, rather than what it isn’t, it’s reasonably okay.
Interesting. I actually found the 2016 movie to be first-half reasonable comedy and second-half awful kid’s movie.
So I guess if Afterlife at least knows what it is then that’s already better.
GB 2016 just really made we want to watch those four actresses plus Chris Hemsworth do literally anything else. It was a great comedic ensemble shackled to terrible chopped-up nonsense script and needless nostaglia-jerking.
It is right. Afterlife is a prime example of how the majority of nostalgia projects from beloved franchises settle on breathless prop worship and ham-fisted callbacks as a means of extracting easy ooh and aahs out of the audience. But the worst thing about it is it’s just not much of a comedy.
It’s like they forgot that the original was literally stocked with SNL and SCTV players.
It’s like Goonies and Ghostbusters mated and had a moody Gen Z kid. 6/10.
I saw it on a plane. You’re mostly right – it is elevated a little bit because the lead child actress is actually quite good, and Carrie Coon+Paul Rudd know what they’re doing and bring a glint of that Sigourney+Bill Murray screwball romance. But it’s definitely missable.
My wife watched part of it on a flight and described it as “pretty cute.” She didn’t feel compelled to finish it or anything.
the fuckin’ dumbest part of all of this is doubling and tripling down on ivo shandor/gozer shit. you could do almost ANYTHING with the premise but suddenly this is a fucking series about “lore” and “mythology”the IDW Ghostbusters series was amazing. It did eventually retackle Gozer but a. without stupid children of the cast and b. after years and years of — crazily enough — new ideas totally unrelated.
Back when there was still a pretty strong “Ghostbusters 2? And you want a SEQUEL?” vibe going on, they reunited most of the cast for a halfway decent video game.The story (yeah, spoilers whatever) basically comes down to Shandor’s spirit looking at Gozer, saying “for fuck’s sake, how many times can you mess this up?” and deciding to be the big bad on his own.Honestly? Stripped of some of the more pointless scenes shoehorned in for Vidja Gameiness (OK, I admit, going after Slimer in the ballroom was aweseome) it would probably make a better movie than it should.
I played that game, it was a lot of fun and I don’t disagree. It was a solid story.
The IDW comics actually brought in your nameless “rookie” character! Everybody called him Rookie. I don’t remember if he ever got an actual name. =D
The Gozer redux gets a pass from me because it’s sort of built into the story that Gozer can only be resurrected in a Very Specific Way. Of course, the larger question is why have the threat be Gozer again? Way to tie in Egon bailing on his family for decades because Gozer’s world ending threat is that important and he didn’t want his daughter hanging around on a suicide mission. But if you’re gonna Gozer, it’s going to happen in that way.
while watching this movie i got the same vibes as a bootleg Simpsons shirt of Bart saluting the flag at ground zero, or Spongebob fanart where all the characters are crying around the grave of the show’s creator
I find it implausible that anyone could be both too hot to handle and too cold to hold. If they could finally see fit to rectifying this jarring plot hole, it’d be much appreciated.
And how would I know if there’s an invisible man sleepin’ in my bed? He’s invisible!
If you’re going to write an entire article in sarcasm, you need to be better at it.
I recently watched the original Ghostbusters movie with my son (who is 13). It was fine but wasn’t as good (or as funny) as I remembered from when I was 12-13 (i.e., 1984 when it was released). It had moments – and the nostalgia for the film depends on memories of those exact moments. The amount of fanatical dedication to this film – and the utter loathing that is thrown at anything related that has come afterwards (except, somehow, Ghostbusters II which is really not very good) – is somewhat inexplicable.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife? It was also fine. A reasonably entertaining film. The 2016 Ghostbusters? Yeah, that was a mess that squandered a good comedic cast. Does it deserve the hate? Nah. It’s just kind of a failure.