‘Ghostbusters: Afterlife’ goes straight to nostalgia & an ageless Paul Rudd

As we know, Jason Reitman grabbed the bid to write and direct the sequel to his father’s Ghostbusters franchise. We also know that he wasn’t exactly delicate in announcing that his movie would be one the fans liked and not, “the ‘Juno’ of ‘Ghostbusters’ movies.” He called his sequel a “love letter to Ghostbusters,” Well, we now have the first trailer for Reitman Jr.’s love letter version, Ghostbusters: Afterlife, let’s see how it comes across:

I am intrigued so please don’t read any of this as me dismissing this sequel. If it gets good write-ups, I’ll check it out. But I do have some thoughts on the trailer. My first thought was that it looks more like a love letter to Tremors than Ghostbusters. But the very sinister intro is an interesting choice. The original GB, although it tried for a few eerie scenes, never really presented itself as anything other than campy fun. But JR may be trying to make a horror-comedy hybrid. As for the plot, what I gathered was the family, Carrie Coon, Mckenna Grace and Finn Wolfhard, are related to the late Dr. Egon Spengler, played by Harold Ramis in the original. I assumed this because all the other Ghostbusters are listed in the credits and Ramis, most unfortunately, passed away IRL. So Spengler’s grandkids and their friends will pick up the mantle and carry on as the new Ghostbusters when ghosts reemerge after 30 years of hibernation. My guess is Paul Rudd’s character will prove to be some legacy as well, maybe of Rick Moranis’ Louis Tully character. Moranis is the only living main cast member not returning for this film (Moranis rarely appears on screen after taking a hiatus in 1997 to raise his kids flowing the death of his wife). So this film will keep the original cast in some capacity, including origin story, the costumes, the car and the machinery. The changes will be the venue from a big city to an out of the way farm and our new heroes are teenagers. Huh. At least they aren’t all adult women, right?

I’ve said and will stick by my thoughts on Paul Feig’s 2016 Ghostbusters: it wasn’t a great film but I thought it was fun and I was entertained enough by it to watch it a second time with my kids, who loved it. I appreciated the way they tried to reimagine the story while still paying as much homage as they could to the original. (I apologize, I have completely forgotten the plot of the 1989 GB sequel so I can’t reference any of it.) The one consistent thing in both incarnations was that the four Ghostbusters were all brilliant or quite versed in their field or hobby (i.e. Leslie Jones amateur historian character). So even with Bill Murray’s Venkman being a Lothario with a total disregard for convention or Kristen Wiig’s Gilbert abandoning her belief in the paranormal, I could accept their contribution to the story because of their incredible abilities. I’m not sure how I am supposed to be comfortable with four teenagers, two of whom are in personal turmoil and the other two who only know the life of a small-town, handling mini-nuclear reactors on their backs. I get how the 2016 version would not work in this story-wise. But the graphics aren’t good here. JR. claims he has nothing but respect for the four female leads of the Feig version but this trailer suggests that four children will be more believable to the fans than capable women scientists.

I assume Paul Rudd is supposed to heal all wounds between the Reitman and Feig divide. And honestly, if anyone can unite the two fandoms, it would probably be Paul Rudd. I’m excited to see Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts reprise their roles. And, I guess if I am being totally upfront, I am most curious why Spengler brought the lab to the middle of nowhere, I’m assuming that;s the heart of the story. I’m probably being protective. I know JR doesn’t owe them anything, but asking for any of the four 2016 characters to make a cameo, in completely different roles, like the original cast did for them, would have been a nice gesture on his part. After all, according to JR, those ladies, “expanded the universe and made an amazing movie!”





Photo credit: WENN Photos and YouTube

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

23 Responses to “‘Ghostbusters: Afterlife’ goes straight to nostalgia & an ageless Paul Rudd”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. damejudi says:

    I’m old enough to remember what a blockbuster the original Ghostbusters was when it was released.

    So, I’m excited to see this one. Definitely here for Annie Potts!

  2. Darla says:

    Won’t be seeing it. I guess I am one of the few not enamored with Paul Rudd. I don’t dislike him, I can take him or leave him. He’s a meh. Definitely not someone who’s going to get me to give up money for this after what bros did to the 2016 Ghostbusters. Never gonna happen my friend.

    • Adrien says:

      Unpopular opinion:Paul Rudd looks his age. Same with Keannu. He is a charmer but he is aging normally. He looks youthful when he’s alone but when he is around his younger co stars, the age shows and he looks like their goofball dad or uncle. Both him and Keannu are unproblematic and generous men so I get the youthful appeal.

  3. smcollins says:

    Okay, that actually looks pretty good. Nothing will top the original (I pretend the sequel never happened) and I really liked the 2016 remake, but yeah… I’m definitely going to see this. And even if it winds up being not-so-good or even terrible it’s got Paul Rudd, so still a win!

  4. Betsy says:

    I’ve grown to prefer the 2016 reboot to the original, which didn’t age well in some ways. Perhaps the messy misogyny behind the backlash heightened my feelings, but I really enjoyed the 2016 one.

    I probably won’t see this one except by accident.

  5. Becks1 says:

    I really liked the 2016 reboot; I thought the end was kind of stupid but its a movie about ghosts, theres only so many ways to make an ending not stupid, lol.

    We watch the first one a couple of times a year (my husband loves it) and I like it bc its good campy 80s fun, but I also don’t think it has aged well. There are some scenes in it that make me really uncomfortable, and I don’t like watching it with my kids.

    The second one was about the painting, and Viggo trying totake the baby, etc. and how the people in NYC needed to love each other and the statute of liberty walks etc. It wasn’t bad, but we never watch it for whatever reason.

  6. Mia4s says:

    I adored the first one, so yeah this got me right in the feels. And oh there are some major Easter eggs for those of us who were big fans of the original! “Shandor Mine” 😁😉

    But I’m also aware it’s a big studio cash grab…so, perspective. 😬

    I didn’t really like the 2016 movie so that’s a shrug from me. It lost the studio a ton of money so I don’t think they’re going to be eager to revisit it with cameos or otherwise. That’s showbiz.

    • Red32 says:

      The more I think about Finn Wolfhard as Egon’s grandson – yeah, that could work. This reminds me of Extreme Ghostbusters (the cartoon followup to Real Ghostbusters) where Egon assembled a team of college kids to take over when ghost activity started up again after years of quiet. But Harold Ramis has passed, so Paul Rudd appears to be filling that “teacher who assembled young team” role with younger kids.

  7. spike says:

    huge GB fan..even loved the 2016 version, though it was was maligned so badly. i think if they had dumped Kristen Wiig and changed the ending, the movie would have been more fun. Can’t wait to see the new movie!

  8. Mindy says:

    I saw the trailer yesterday and I have one question… where is the HUMOR? There didn’t seem to be any. This came off more as a Stranger Things rip-off than a Ghostbusters movie.

    • paddyjr says:

      That was my question too. What made the original work, other than the chemistry of the cast, was the absurdist humor. Ackroyd and Ramos wanted to make a horror-comedy and they succeeded (eventually, the studio didn’t know how to market it at first). This looks like a “dark origin story” film.

    • Sunnydaze says:

      SAME. This plot could easily be a mediocre Netflix release. And I don’t know why, but I have an irrational annoyance for that kid from stranger things. I quit this most recent season because of the sappy terrible acting (by all the kids, even millie), but he in particular is just soooooo bad. There are some incredibly talented young teen actors, and I get casting name recognition, but I probably won’t see this just because I can’t take sitting through his acting. It’s like watching your nephew in a middle school play: Great kid probably, and also I don’t have to pretend everything you do is amazing – the teacher was high when she cast you as Huck Finn and your Danny Zuko isn’t any better. you might want to take those SAT prep classes after all.

  9. Jamie says:

    I kinda love the fact that Reitman made Spangler’s kid is a daughter because Harold Ramis’ daughter wrote a memoir about him and appeared in a recent documentary about the original film.

  10. Jerusha says:

    I saw the original Ghostbusters on first release and didn’t find it in any way special, always wondered at the hype around it. Went to the 2016 to see if a female cast would improve on it. Turns out Hemsworth was the best thing about that movie. Will skip this one.

  11. Shoop says:

    Stranger Thingbusters. Nope.

  12. Marian E. Bayusik says:

    I suspect if this movie does well, the cast of the 2016 movie and this movie will meet up in the sequel.

  13. Erica says:

    In the original, Ray mortgaged the house his parents left him to pay for the initial setup of the business. Maybe they all had to move back to the house when they caught all the ghosts?

  14. usedtobe says:

    I don’t typically watch remakes or reboots but this one got me. It looks like it will be a hell of a lot of fun and some good entertainment so I’ll go see it!

  15. What...now? says:

    Not seeing it. I’m still pissed off at how the 2016 one was panned before it was even done being made because a bunch of whiny losers said it ruined their childhood. If this movie is supposed to pander to that kind of internet douchery — then you don’t need my money or time. Next!

  16. amilou says:

    Bill Murray’s Venkman (not Bill Murray’s Veitman). 🙂

  17. CK says:

    I’ve seen so many comments elsewhere praising this trailer while slagging the 2016 version and I’m just confused. Ghostbusters was a comedy. At least, the 2016 version tried to be (and I thought they succeeded on most accounts). This just feels like stranger things w/ some ghost busters props.

    Only one prominent adult woman though so I guess the fanbase will go nuts.

  18. Red32 says:

    I was a huge fan of Ghostbusters as a kid. Had a toy proton pack, ID card, made a containment unit out of an appliance box, watched the cartoon religiously. I didn’t really like the 2016 version, but I don’t see the fan reaction to this as “oh teenagers are better than adult women”. I think it’s being better received by fans because it acknowledges the first movie happened and is a continuation in the same universe. Same packs and traps and Ecto 1 we played with as kids instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. I didn’t want to see the original cast back in dumb random character cameos, I wanted to see Venkman and Janine and Winston even if only briefly to pass the torch to someone else. Yeah, it’s nostalgia, but that’s what a reboot is by definition. It’s not an original idea.

  19. BellaBella says:

    Why the move to a location in the middle of nowhere? I’m guessing because it is WAY cheaper.