I agree with some of the finale criticisms, but I expected to get that going in. It did not bother me while watching it because of that and because the emotional scene happening at the time actually worked and that was far more engaging.
I've got 3 more showings to ringmaster before I can get down my thoughts to text though.
I look forward to some constructive conversations and I'm really curious if there's any chance for an extended cut here. I wouldn't think so, but there are stretches of movie that feel like they were left out for runtime and pacing.
I weirdly just felt nothing for the Egon part of the finale. The film establishes he's spent...well Carrie Coon is 41 but she was born before the original Ghostbusters and she has a 15 year old so she's playing...what? It's only 32 years since the 2nd film. And Egon had no relationship at that point and seemingly no interest in one. So she's...29 with a 15 year old? Or Egon already had a child and was an abandoning dick before we even knew him?
The entire thing hasn't been thought through to the most basic of fundamentals. Let's be generous and say Carrie Coon is playing 30 at best, that means Egon has spent the last 25 to 20 years acting completely out of character, preventing his friends from being Ghostbusters which meant a lot to Winston and Ray at least, abandoned his daughter, her mother, all to take on some task that for some reason took over 20 years and would have easily been resolved had he included the Ghostbusters. The same ones who bought into an apartment building built of magic metal to channel ghosts. Which means they all have to act out of character as well.
The film just can't have it both ways. It has sentimental moments but they're with an invisible force who is actively not engaging with his grandson or daughter for the first two thirds of the film. The intent and obviously the interpretation for many is that Egon is a hero who sacrificed everything to save the world, but the reality is the film is pretty much a character assassination and requires Egon to be completely out of character in every way from the logical, dispassionate guy he was.
I got that it was meant to be sentimental, it just didn't hit home. Maybe it would have been better if the OGbusters had turned up earlier in the film to interact more. To know they didn't even know their comrade was dead? What an awful backstory Reitman and Kenan made for our heroes, and again because of Coon's age, this has to have been going on pretty much from 1989. It's not unbelievable for Harold Ramis to have a 40 year old daughter, he has one, but it's unbelievable for Egon to have one.
AlphaRomero on
+2
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
Yeah there was definitely stuff cut for time as the trailer had scenes and dialog not in the final cut. I'm sure it was done to keep it close to 2 hours, which was nice as it didn't overstay its welcome like the current trend of overlong superhero movies.
I agree with some of the finale criticisms, but I expected to get that going in. It did not bother me while watching it because of that and because the emotional scene happening at the time actually worked and that was far more engaging.
I've got 3 more showings to ringmaster before I can get down my thoughts to text though.
I look forward to some constructive conversations and I'm really curious if there's any chance for an extended cut here. I wouldn't think so, but there are stretches of movie that feel like they were left out for runtime and pacing.
I weirdly just felt nothing for the Egon part of the finale. The film establishes he's spent...well Carrie Coon is 41 but she was born before the original Ghostbusters and she has a 15 year old so she's playing...what? It's only 32 years since the 2nd film. And Egon had no relationship at that point and seemingly no interest in one. So she's...29 with a 15 year old? Or Egon already had a child and was an abandoning dick before we even knew him?
The entire thing hasn't been thought through to the most basic of fundamentals. Let's be generous and say Carrie Coon is playing 30 at best, that means Egon has spent the last 30 years acting completely out of character, preventing his friends from being Ghostbusters which meant a lot to Winston and Ray at least, abandoned his daughter, her mother, all to take on some task that for some reason took 30 years and would have easily been resolved had he included the Ghostbusters. The same ones who bought into an apartment building built of magic metal to channel ghosts.
The film just can't have it both ways. It has sentimental moments but they're with an invisible force who is actively not engaging with his grandson or daughter for the first two thirds of the film. The intent and obviously the interpretation for many is that Egon is a hero who sacrificed everything to save the world, but the reality is the film is pretty much a character assassination and requires Egon to be completely out of character in every way from the logical, dispassionate guy he was.
I got that it was meant to be sentimental, it just didn't hit home. Maybe it would have been better if the OGbusters had turned up earlier in the film to interact more. To know they didn't even know their comrade was dead? What an awful backstory Reitman and Kenan made for our heroes, and again because of Coon's age, this has to have been going on pretty much from 1989. It's not unbelievable for Harold Ramis to have a 40 year old daughter, he has one, but it's unbelievable for Egon to have one.
Does the movie say,
When Egon split to go try and stop Gozer? I assumed it was in the mid to late 90's. I do concur that the ages don't make any sense, but neither does like any of the science in these movie so I'm just rolling with it.
I agree with some of the finale criticisms, but I expected to get that going in. It did not bother me while watching it because of that and because the emotional scene happening at the time actually worked and that was far more engaging.
I've got 3 more showings to ringmaster before I can get down my thoughts to text though.
I look forward to some constructive conversations and I'm really curious if there's any chance for an extended cut here. I wouldn't think so, but there are stretches of movie that feel like they were left out for runtime and pacing.
I weirdly just felt nothing for the Egon part of the finale. The film establishes he's spent...well Carrie Coon is 41 but she was born before the original Ghostbusters and she has a 15 year old so she's playing...what? It's only 32 years since the 2nd film. And Egon had no relationship at that point and seemingly no interest in one. So she's...29 with a 15 year old? Or Egon already had a child and was an abandoning dick before we even knew him?
The entire thing hasn't been thought through to the most basic of fundamentals. Let's be generous and say Carrie Coon is playing 30 at best, that means Egon has spent the last 30 years acting completely out of character, preventing his friends from being Ghostbusters which meant a lot to Winston and Ray at least, abandoned his daughter, her mother, all to take on some task that for some reason took 30 years and would have easily been resolved had he included the Ghostbusters. The same ones who bought into an apartment building built of magic metal to channel ghosts.
The film just can't have it both ways. It has sentimental moments but they're with an invisible force who is actively not engaging with his grandson or daughter for the first two thirds of the film. The intent and obviously the interpretation for many is that Egon is a hero who sacrificed everything to save the world, but the reality is the film is pretty much a character assassination and requires Egon to be completely out of character in every way from the logical, dispassionate guy he was.
I got that it was meant to be sentimental, it just didn't hit home. Maybe it would have been better if the OGbusters had turned up earlier in the film to interact more. To know they didn't even know their comrade was dead? What an awful backstory Reitman and Kenan made for our heroes, and again because of Coon's age, this has to have been going on pretty much from 1989. It's not unbelievable for Harold Ramis to have a 40 year old daughter, he has one, but it's unbelievable for Egon to have one.
Does the movie say,
When Egon split to go try and stop Gozer? I assumed it was in the mid to late 90's. I do concur that the ages don't make any sense, but neither does like any of the science in these movie so I'm just rolling with it.
Both of Harold's daughters were sitting above and behind me during the movie and Jason and the cast invoked his memory before the movie so I entirely unable to not be biased about that scene. I always said they should never try to do ghost-Egon in a movie and I would be pissed if they attempted something so crass, but then in the theater I had tears POURING down my face when they did it.
I don't know that it worked for the characters as established, but it certainly worked in that I was seeing them as the actors saying goodbye to their friend and partner.
The likeness managed to not fall into the uncanny either and that in itself is a damn miracle. No dead Luke Skywalker eyes or any of the other pitfalls larger, more powerful franchises have stepped in.
We will see if the wound reopens tonight at my second viewing.
The entire thing hasn't been thought through to the most basic of fundamentals. Let's be generous and say Carrie Coon is playing 30 at best, that means Egon has spent the last 30 years acting completely out of character, preventing his friends from being Ghostbusters which meant a lot to Winston and Ray at least, abandoned his daughter, her mother, all to take on some task that for some reason took 30 years and would have easily been resolved had he included the Ghostbusters. The same ones who bought into an apartment building built of magic metal to channel ghosts.
The film just can't have it both ways. It has sentimental moments but they're with an invisible force who is actively not engaging with his grandson or daughter for the first two thirds of the film. The intent and obviously the interpretation for many is that Egon is a hero who sacrificed everything to save the world, but the reality is the film is pretty much a character assassination and requires Egon to be completely out of character in every way from the logical, dispassionate guy he was.
I agreed with pretty everything you said about Egon, his characterization in the two movies was not of a loner type, there is no way he would go off and do something like this without at least talking to the others. And Stanz not listening him makes even less sense, he was shown to be the conspiracy nut in the group in the first movie. Why would he not believe Egon after everything that has happened?
I think that this script needed a few more passes and that the core of a really good movie is in there. That it doesn't really get there is pretty frustrating
I think that this script needed a few more passes and that the core of a really good movie is in there. That it doesn't really get there is pretty frustrating
I dont think writing it is a job that should have been given to Reitman or Gil Kenan. Neither has any background in anything like Ghostbusters and Kenans work is all pretty terrible to mediocre. The ending specifically was written by someone who's never dealt with where special effects should be happening in relation to everything else going on. Neither of them have Aykroyd's or ramis's writing background or experience in comedy especially. That isn't to say Reitman shouldn't have directed, he was fine, but ultimately I think some of the casting was a misfire and that's on him, and certainly the flat ending is his responsibility as well.
Unless I'm missing a credit I'm surprised at least Aykroyd didn't write the story before it was refined into the shooting script. You need a nut job like Aykroyd to provide the underlying lore and reason why any of this is happening.
The stuff that I want punched up isn't necessarily the jokes, though I'm not sure those work very well either
There's a great core of a story there about Phoebe looking for a connection and, through the plot of the movie, connecting with her new friends and her actual family. That's mostly there! It just doesn't fully work because the movie doesn't do a terrific job of establishing her brother and her mother as fully realized characters. Trevor sort of disappears for the middle part of the movie until they need someone to drive a car, and he's wildly obnoxious at the beginning when he's in snarky teen mode. Their mom is...it's hard to get a read on what is up with their mom other than, "she is mad at her dad and her mom I guess doesn't exist even a little bit?" What we know is that she's a struggling single mother who has trouble connecting to her daughter, but they don't...really show why they're broke aside from, I guess, that she doesn't have a job and that she isn't really even looking for one? The other kids in the movie we get even less of. Lucky essentially isn't a character at all. Podcast gets more to do, but they put him at a massive disadvantage by naming that character Podcast. Paul Rudd largely gets by by being...Paul Rudd. So when these people all rally around Phoebe at the end it's not especially triumphant, because the only journey most of these people went on was that they saw a ghost and just sign up to follow Phoebe around
And that's a bummer, because there are some really promising bits where Phoebe is following Egon's ghost around, and digging into what happened in the first movie. I know one of the major concerns going into this movie was that it was going to mythologize the original movie a little too reverently, and that...isn't entirely wrong, given all of the loving shots of various Ghostbusters props. Where the movie unabashedly works are when Phoebe is working with her grandpa's ghost to fix a proton pack, or when she goes out into a field and obliterates a target with a proton pack. When the movie is like, "isn't this stuff important," it's doesn't work. It's when the movie goes, "isn't this shit sick as hell," when it absolutely works, because those props are cool as shit, the sounds they make are cool as shit, and it effectively taps into why kids latched onto the original. Where the nostalgia for the original is effective is where it taps into how most people watching know that Harold Ramis died, and it taps into the reality of that through his granddaughter. Phoebe watching youtube clips of the original Ghostbusters, focusing on the grandfather she never knew? That's the thread they should have been hitting the whole time.
I don't know what they needed to do with the rest of the cast of this. My main instinct would have been to cut Trevor entirely, since the main thing he brings to this movie is that he fixes the Ectomobile and drives it, which Phoebe is too young to do. I also don't especially like Finn Wolfhard. If you keep him around, and you want to still have him work at the diner...tie it into his family's financial problems? It's weird that the movie sends him there solely because he has a crush that doesn't really go anywhere instead of him getting a job to, I dunno, help his family out? Carrie Coon should have probably...also gotten a job? It's extremely weird that she didn't? Podcast should have...had a human name, and uh they should have made his personality less, "he has a podcast," than, "he is into occult stuff so much he does a podcast." Is that splitting hairs a bit? Yes, absolutely, but it would have been less weird than what it looks like here, which is that maybe one of the screenwriters was like, "what are kids into now," and settled on "podcasts," which is...improbable. Paul Rudd's character is fine. No real notes there.
One other note is that when they were like "this wall predicted things," they should have...well, they should have done anything other than just list years and have someone go, "oh, like when this happened," but if they were going to do that, they should have skipped 1945. Can't believe there were two movies this month that stepped on the rake of, "let's reference when America nuked two fucking cities and tie it explicitly into our absurd genre story," especially when this one knew enough to not like...explicitly say what happened in 1945.
The ghost Harold Ramis bit at the end almost worked for me. I wish they'd lingered on the shots of him as a ghost for much less time than they actually did. For a moment there, I thought the initial shot you see of him, where he's helping Phoebe hold position firing the proton gun and all you see is his ghostly arm, was going to be all there was. And I think that would have been enough for me! The earlier scenes, of him moving lamps and playing chess and leading his family to signs that he loved them, those all really worked for me.
I love the little mini-sta puft guys though, very strong response to that weird period after Baby Groot and Baby Yoda where goddamned everything was adding a baby version of something right up until baby Mr. Peanut killed that trend dead. Leading off with "aren't they so cute," and immediately pivoting into that sequence was very good and more of the ghost scenes needed that energy
Podcast would absolutely be called YouTube (or Streamer?) or TikTok (short-hand-video-format). That's an out-of-touch part.
They could have cut Trevor by bringing in Ray earlier and part of the film is about reigniting his passion for what he used to do through Phoebe's passion for it. Trevor exists to fix the car and bring in Lucky so someone else can be possessed by the Gatekeeper (and let's just gloss over the implications of that having happened earlier) so that Carrie Coon could be freed to have her reunion with Egon. I imagine it's inevitable because you can't have a 15 year old operating independently, but if the rest of the Spengler family doesn't return bar Phoebe I'd be much happier with the sequel.
Spoiler: They didn't like it. The more time I have away from it, the more I realize it's just not a Ghostbusters film. It's a coming-of-age dramedy and nothing like what it's based on, lacking that same universal appeal to adults and kids that the first one had. If you're an adult who didn't grow up on the originals, I'm not sure you could like it.
I think Red Letter Media does okay with a lot of their analysis and break downs, but a lot of times it kind of strikes me as "this movie had a different vision than we had going into it and it is therefore a bad movie" and I kinda don't have patience for that take.
I appreciate RLM and their honesty and attention to detail, but I'd say they get nearly as much wrong as they do right and I take their stuff with a massive grain of salt.
I agree with them pretty much that right up to the Wal-Mart scene I was enjoying it enough, but after that it felt like a whole different movie, which was made worse by the fact that it wasted so much screen time on the Mini Pufts. It was comparable to the Rebel fleet showing up at the end of Rise of Skywalker, just hammering you over the head with "here's all the stuff you like! Does it make sense? Who caaaares!! bwoom bwooom *Star Wars theme*" which can make for a pretty good theatre experience but is hollow and diminishing returns upon any rewatch.
Really hoping a director's cut give things room to breath and like, a little more connective tissue.
Anyway, Adam Savage got a peak at the new Hasbro pack and I've already put in an order for all the real parts to replace on it because I have a disease.
I raised the Walmart scene when it showed up in trailers and was told hey "there's a Twinkie and a Crunch in the first one" but that Walmart placement is just obscene. Do they even have Walmarts in such small towns? There's like 20 people living there from what we see in the film.
There is a Walmart in Drumheller where they shot it, but they went to an even more out of the way town to shoot at the Walmart there for whatever reason. So yeah, there's always a Walmart.
I appreciate RLM and their honesty and attention to detail, but I'd say they get nearly as much wrong as they do right and I take their stuff with a massive grain of salt.
Yeah I love RLM, and I'll check this out after I see the film, but their best wheelhouse is mocking youtube nerds and watching crappy movies and tearing them apart, or talking about things they adore.
Like I agreed with like, half, of their takes on the new Star Wars movies, so I'm sure I'll only agree with half of this as well.
The real incongruity with the Walmart scene is that the shelves are all fully stocked and every pallet of merchandise is perfectly squared-off in the center of the aisle, plus all the florescent lights are on.
A real Walmart in rural Oklahoma would be far drearier. Hell, the suburban Walmarts I've been to are plenty dreary.
Unsurprisingly, I thought the mini-Pufts were great and that whole scene was highly entertaining.
I don't think I'll bother writing up any detailed reviews. I would just feel like I had to respond to the negative criticism and nobody wants to read that, especially if they saw the movie entirely differently than I did.
I think Jason Reitman nailed this thing and 90-95% of it is better than I expected it to be and the rest is forgivable due to the difficulty of doing a decades-later sequel. The actors managed emotion and nuance without exposition-dumping constantly. The action/trapping sequences were a load of fun to watch, and the humor was consistent throughout.
I'm too deep into this thing to be able to go through the play-by-play without feeling like I'm telling people who didn't like it that they were wrong. I'll let the box office decide and keep my discussions about the film to my irl friend circles.
The real incongruity with the Walmart scene is that the shelves are all fully stocked and every pallet of merchandise is perfectly squared-off in the center of the aisle, plus all the florescent lights are on.
A real Walmart in rural Oklahoma would be far drearier. Hell, the suburban Walmarts I've been to are plenty dreary.
Unsurprisingly, I thought the mini-Pufts were great and that whole scene was highly entertaining.
I don't think I'll bother writing up any detailed reviews. I would just feel like I had to respond to the negative criticism and nobody wants to read that, especially if they saw the movie entirely differently than I did.
I think Jason Reitman nailed this thing and 90-95% of it is better than I expected it to be and the rest is forgivable due to the difficulty of doing a decades-later sequel. The actors managed emotion and nuance without exposition-dumping constantly. The action/trapping sequences were a load of fun to watch, and the humor was consistent throughout.
I'm too deep into this thing to be able to go through the play-by-play without feeling like I'm telling people who didn't like it that they were wrong. I'll let the box office decide and keep my discussions about the film to my irl friend circles.
I don't think the BO is a fair judge, look at the Transformers films. That said I want it to succeed. I do WANT more Ghostbusters, just ideally with a different creative team behind it. At the least, different writers.
Definitely a couple of the references felt a lot like when they center the camera on a glass of blue milk right at the start of Rogue One, where it's not enough that there's a nod to the franchise it's in, it has to also make sure you see it. Afterlife has a lot of easter eggs, but some of them are a little much?
The glovebox opening up to reveal a Twinkie is too much. Podcast putting the colander that Louis wore in Ghostbusters in the background of a scene where other things are happening? A little better. The sheriff saying, "who ya gonna call?" Maybe the loudest I groaned during the entire movie
The real incongruity with the Walmart scene is that the shelves are all fully stocked and every pallet of merchandise is perfectly squared-off in the center of the aisle, plus all the florescent lights are on.
A real Walmart in rural Oklahoma would be far drearier. Hell, the suburban Walmarts I've been to are plenty dreary.
Unsurprisingly, I thought the mini-Pufts were great and that whole scene was highly entertaining.
I don't think I'll bother writing up any detailed reviews. I would just feel like I had to respond to the negative criticism and nobody wants to read that, especially if they saw the movie entirely differently than I did.
I think Jason Reitman nailed this thing and 90-95% of it is better than I expected it to be and the rest is forgivable due to the difficulty of doing a decades-later sequel. The actors managed emotion and nuance without exposition-dumping constantly. The action/trapping sequences were a load of fun to watch, and the humor was consistent throughout.
I'm too deep into this thing to be able to go through the play-by-play without feeling like I'm telling people who didn't like it that they were wrong. I'll let the box office decide and keep my discussions about the film to my irl friend circles.
I don't think the BO is a fair judge, look at the Transformers films. That said I want it to succeed. I do WANT more Ghostbusters, just ideally with a different creative team behind it. At the least, different writers.
I got a few dozen dorks in flight-suits from around the country I've been standing around with the last week talking about how much we think this movie ruled. Lots of these folks were pretty divided amongst each-other about the last movie but are far more unified with this, even though it was pretty different from the original. We'd likely love a sequel if the Reitmans and the actors are up for doing this again.
If they change the team to some other group of people I'm going all the way down to between "cautiously optimistic" and "active dread".
I am respecting there is a diverse range of reactions here. I'll let the ridiculous comparison to the Michael Bay Transformers movies slide for now but don't push it.
Definitely a couple of the references felt a lot like when they center the camera on a glass of blue milk right at the start of Rogue One, where it's not enough that there's a nod to the franchise it's in, it has to also make sure you see it. Afterlife has a lot of easter eggs, but some of them are a little much?
The glovebox opening up to reveal a Twinkie is too much. Podcast putting the colander that Louis wore in Ghostbusters in the background of a scene where other things are happening? A little better. The sheriff saying, "who ya gonna call?" Maybe the loudest I groaned during the entire movie
The Twinkie was expected to show up at some point and it was a quick shot so it got a chuckle. The Sheriff's whole character did not work at all for me. He's a hardass but doesn't even keep the kids overnight for pointing a demonstrably-dangerous lighting-gun at him threateningly? The "who ya gonna call?" was groan-worthy too but again, we expected it to show up somewhere.
The colander actually got cheers in all of the showings I saw. People liked that reference.
Visual nods are don't bother me so much as long as they don't stop the plot, but they're better when they're not in center frame for too many beats. I like an inside joke or background reference. There's a box of Cheez-its that barely breaks frame, for instance. I haven't seen anyone complain about that but fans spotted it.
Definitely a couple of the references felt a lot like when they center the camera on a glass of blue milk right at the start of Rogue One, where it's not enough that there's a nod to the franchise it's in, it has to also make sure you see it. Afterlife has a lot of easter eggs, but some of them are a little much?
The glovebox opening up to reveal a Twinkie is too much. Podcast putting the colander that Louis wore in Ghostbusters in the background of a scene where other things are happening? A little better. The sheriff saying, "who ya gonna call?" Maybe the loudest I groaned during the entire movie
The Twinkie was expected to show up at some point and it was a quick shot so it got a chuckle. The Sheriff's whole character did not work at all for me. He's a hardass but doesn't even keep the kids overnight for pointing a demonstrably-dangerous lighting-gun at him threateningly? The "who ya gonna call?" was groan-worthy too but again, we expected it to show up somewhere.
The colander actually got cheers in all of the showings I saw. People liked that reference.
Visual nods are don't bother me so much as long as they don't stop the plot, but they're better when they're not in center frame for too many beats. I like an inside joke or background reference. There's a box of Cheez-its that barely breaks frame, for instance. I haven't seen anyone complain about that but fans spotted it.
Yeah, a couple quick gags are more than fine! Honestly that's what I expected when the reports came in about a lot of easter eggs, stuff like, "hey, here's a prop from the old movies on a shelf, you'll see them if you're looking for them.
I guess some of the oddness of this stuff was that I went and saw this with a buddy who hadn't seen the first two movies, and he could tell when something was a reference even if he didn't know what the reference was.
But here's the thing: if they do another one of these (and since one did pretty well, there's a good chance they will), hopefully they'll have gotten this out of their system and build around the newer stuff they've brought to the table. I liked a lot of the pieces here, and hopefully they can get out of their own way a bit more. At the very least, I'd like them to build the next one around Phoebe again
Definitely a couple of the references felt a lot like when they center the camera on a glass of blue milk right at the start of Rogue One, where it's not enough that there's a nod to the franchise it's in, it has to also make sure you see it. Afterlife has a lot of easter eggs, but some of them are a little much?
The glovebox opening up to reveal a Twinkie is too much. Podcast putting the colander that Louis wore in Ghostbusters in the background of a scene where other things are happening? A little better. The sheriff saying, "who ya gonna call?" Maybe the loudest I groaned during the entire movie
The Twinkie was expected to show up at some point and it was a quick shot so it got a chuckle. The Sheriff's whole character did not work at all for me. He's a hardass but doesn't even keep the kids overnight for pointing a demonstrably-dangerous lighting-gun at him threateningly? The "who ya gonna call?" was groan-worthy too but again, we expected it to show up somewhere.
The colander actually got cheers in all of the showings I saw. People liked that reference.
Visual nods are don't bother me so much as long as they don't stop the plot, but they're better when they're not in center frame for too many beats. I like an inside joke or background reference. There's a box of Cheez-its that barely breaks frame, for instance. I haven't seen anyone complain about that but fans spotted it.
Yeah, a couple quick gags are more than fine! Honestly that's what I expected when the reports came in about a lot of easter eggs, stuff like, "hey, here's a prop from the old movies on a shelf, you'll see them if you're looking for them.
I guess some of the oddness of this stuff was that I went and saw this with a buddy who hadn't seen the first two movies, and he could tell when something was a reference even if he didn't know what the reference was.
But here's the thing: if they do another one of these (and since one did pretty well, there's a good chance they will), hopefully they'll have gotten this out of their system and build around the newer stuff they've brought to the table. I liked a lot of the pieces here, and hopefully they can get out of their own way a bit more. At the very least, I'd like them to build the next one around Phoebe again
The second movie will be an exercise in letting go of the past (killing it if you have to) and after a large fan backlash they will go back to fighting evil pink slime in movie three.
+5
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
I think Alpha nailed it - this was an 80s adventure movie
And I fucking loved it
I'm slightly glad I got some negative, but non-spoilery, opinions from this thread before going in - it made me not know what to expect. And I can see the common thread of disappointment in Afterlife seems to be failed expectations. I get that! But I enjoyed what I saw.
My two nitpicks
Olivia Wilde's face was distracting to me. Was it CGI? Was it makeup? I dunno but I thought it looked weird.
Also Aykroyd and Murray had some just terrible line reads, their entrance was slow as molasses, and I was afraid the finale was going to strangle itself to death. And then it shifted away from the OGs, regained some momentum and finished quite well. If they continue with this cast I hope Aykroyd and Murray are not onscreen again.
Also if this gets a sequel, I hope Winston's "one employee" is Luis Tully. I'd love to see Rick Moranis again
I'm sorry this didn't work for some of you, and I think your criticisms are valid, but I had a ton of fun
I saw the new movie... and it did not make me feel good. On a very basic level, the kids deserved an adventure that was theirs. They deserved to tackle it in their own clumsy, stupid way. The best scene in the movie, the car chase from the trailer was kind of that. The rest of it was servicing the fanbase who were VERY MAD about the 2016 movie trying to make a new Ghostbusters movie. Well congratulations that group, you won that fight.
They just remade the ending of the first movie, but worse in literally every way. And used the corpse of one of the actors as a prop. Gross! It's so weird to me how this movie doesn't even seem to like Ghostbusters 2. There's Ray's bookstore, but everything else in the movie points to it never happening. If I was a hardcore fan (and I'm not), I'd MUCH prefer some combination of the comics, the cartoon, and the videogame to this underwhelming outing.
More specific stuff
I hate the deifying of Ghostbusters props and the complete missing of the point with each one. What if Egon pointed a bunch of proton packs like sentry guns to prevent Gozer from coming back? What if the PKE meter was a ghost taser?? What if 100 Ghost Traps buried in a field because two lightsabers beating Emperor Palpatine was really cool actually and not one of the most groan worthy scenes in Star Wars??? What if the Ecto 1 was literally a superhero car instead of just like... a hearse that was the only car they could find on their budget at the time???? Well uh... all of those would be bad, I guess? So Egon realizes Gozer is coming back again, and instead of saying literally that "Hey, Gozer is coming back, we need a more permanent solution," he starts raving, abandons his family, destroys his friends' business, and then does everything on his own... but badly so that the movie can happen. So the movie will be partially about the dangers of obsession and the importance of teamwork then, I guess. Oh... no, actually Egon is God, everyone loves that guy, it was cool that he ruined his daughter's life and never even saw his Grandkids one time. And teamwork is dumb, it fails completely (in the case of the younger Ghostbusters and the older ones, subsequently), it was actually Phoebe who saved the day single-handedly, with the help of her very cool teamwork destroying Ghost Grandpa.
I'm trying to think if any of the Easter Eggs were on the "oh, cute" side instead of the worst excesses of Star Trek Into Darkness and the Rogue One ones... I guess the kids getting in trouble felt natural to the story of this movie and not just a callback to similar scenes in 1 and 2.
Of course, the end of that scene was the main heroine of the movie attempting MURDER based on a verbal insult so that was... not great.
I saw the new movie... and it did not make me feel good. On a very basic level, the kids deserved an adventure that was theirs. They deserved to tackle it in their own clumsy, stupid way. The best scene in the movie, the car chase from the trailer was kind of that. The rest of it was servicing the fanbase who were VERY MAD about the 2016 movie trying to make a new Ghostbusters movie. Well congratulations that group, you won that fight.
They just remade the ending of the first movie, but worse in literally every way. And used the corpse of one of the actors as a prop. Gross! It's so weird to me how this movie doesn't even seem to like Ghostbusters 2. There's Ray's bookstore, but everything else in the movie points to it never happening. If I was a hardcore fan (and I'm not), I'd MUCH prefer some combination of the comics, the cartoon, and the videogame to this underwhelming outing.
More specific stuff
I hate the deifying of Ghostbusters props and the complete missing of the point with each one. What if Egon pointed a bunch of proton packs like sentry guns to prevent Gozer from coming back? What if the PKE meter was a ghost taser?? What if 100 Ghost Traps buried in a field because two lightsabers beating Emperor Palpatine was really cool actually and not one of the most groan worthy scenes in Star Wars??? What if the Ecto 1 was literally a superhero car instead of just like... a hearse that was the only car they could find on their budget at the time???? Well uh... all of those would be bad, I guess? So Egon realizes Gozer is coming back again, and instead of saying literally that "Hey, Gozer is coming back, we need a more permanent solution," he starts raving, abandons his family, destroys his friends' business, and then does everything on his own... but badly so that the movie can happen. So the movie will be partially about the dangers of obsession and the importance of teamwork then, I guess. Oh... no, actually Egon is God, everyone loves that guy, it was cool that he ruined his daughter's life and never even saw his Grandkids one time. And teamwork is dumb, it fails completely (in the case of the younger Ghostbusters and the older ones, subsequently), it was actually Phoebe who saved the day single-handedly, with the help of her very cool teamwork destroying Ghost Grandpa.
I'm trying to think if any of the Easter Eggs were on the "oh, cute" side instead of the worst excesses of Star Trek Into Darkness and the Rogue One ones... I guess the kids getting in trouble felt natural to the story of this movie and not just a callback to similar scenes in 1 and 2.
Of course, the end of that scene was the main heroine of the movie attempting MURDER based on a verbal insult so that was... not great.
The weird thing is, unless I missed something, they could have just had
Egon disappear in the last 2-3 years. Or even just since Phoebe was born. Egon had grandkids and his values changed (again this is not Egon at all and the entire film is an assassination of his character and I don't think Ramis would have liked this sappy shit either) and he decided he had to do something to protect the world. There was no reason for him to have been doing this for 30 years and so badly, there was no reason for him to wreck his friends' business, turn them all against him, turn his family against him, become a hermit, or any of that shit AT ALL for as long as it was and the intervening years, canonically, would have been wide open for comics, novels, and video games chronicling their adventures. Instead the film makes it impossible for anything to have happened for 3 freaking decades. Like canonically makes it impossible. it's such a colossal misfire of an idea that I don't understand how Ghost Corps, the company specifically tasked with expanding the Ghostbusters universe, said "yeah sure, remove any chance for us to expand the universe with retroactive stories."
I In it the ghostbusters shut down a large mandala which is attracting ghosts to and trapping them in New York. This lines up with dialogue from the movie as it makes sense that there would be less ghosts in New York after this. Winston even mentions that he is getting his doctorate during a level.
I cannot believe they pulled a similar stunt as GBII where people just…forgot the first two movies happened? I’m pretty sure New York being attacked by a giant marshmallow monster and then the Statue of Liberty coming to life just years later to help fight a ghost would be taught in schools.
I could go on about weird pacing, characters that feel superfluous (you could seriously remove Trevor and lose very little, and then you have Ivo Shandor), and this movie’s inability to stop reminding me the other movies exist like I’m a baby bird who just wanted to have my childhood spat back into my mouth. There’s good ideas there, but the movie is way too shackled to the past to stand on its own two feet. The protagonists being led around by a literal ghost of the original team is almost too on-the-nose as an encapsulation of this movie’s problem.
I cannot believe they pulled a similar stunt as GBII where people just…forgot the first two movies happened? I’m pretty sure New York being attacked by a giant marshmallow monster and then the Statue of Liberty coming to life just years later to help fight a ghost would be taught in schools.
I could go on about weird pacing, characters that feel superfluous (you could seriously remove Trevor and lose very little, and then you have Ivo Shandor), and this movie’s inability to stop reminding me the other movies exist like I’m a baby bird who just wanted to have my childhood spat back into my mouth. There’s good ideas there, but the movie is way too shackled to the past to stand on its own two feet. The protagonists being led around by a literal ghost of the original team is almost too on-the-nose as an encapsulation of this movie’s problem.
fwiw
The only character who straight up didn't remember New York was the twelve year-old, who explained, "yes, well, that was twenty years before I was born" when they asked why she didn't know about it. When they asked her brother about it he very matter of factly goes, "yeah, I know about that," and they move on. It makes plenty of sense to me that people in some shithole town in Oklahoma don't spend a lot of time actively talking about weird shit that happened in New York. Also...I dunno, I bet there would be plenty of schools that wouldn't bother with actively teaching that incident
That's not to refute your other points, but I do feel like a lot of the fears that they were gonna have everyone forget about the events of Ghostbusters 1 and 2 in-universe ended up being pretty unfounded
So I watched this movie about numerous malevolent forces converging to destroy a small town and its people.
And now besides the Walmart and the fracking, they have to put up with ghosts as well. Seriously, did anyone find it surprisingly how many fracking references there were?
I went into this one mostly blind, out side of knowing the avclub (which is sounding increasingly like a ghost itself these days) didn't like it. I went in assuming that Finn McStrangerThings would be the main character, but Phoebe ending up being the case, which is good as she's the best character in the show.
I enjoyed it going in but found some stuff to be odd about it. Like I know the 2016 movie took place in different continuity, but this movie more or less retconned Ghostbusters 2 and the video game sequel out of existence. At the same time, it had way too many references to the original. A new version of Slimer, Shandor, Gozer, the Gatekeeper and Keymaster, etc. At least the Baby Staypuffs were pretty cute. I would have gone with a new threat entirely. There also are some Egon lore I'm not sure about. Like, who did he have a kid WITH? You'd think he and Callie would at least acknowledge her mom. Is it supposed to be Janine? If so, you'd think her role would be larger.
I did appreciate and was surprised to see all of the original Ghostbusters. Ackroyd and Hudson I expected, but Bill Murray I did not expect. Either he's mellowed out with age or he's fine appearing in Ghostbusters as long as the torch gets passed (like it did in the video game and 2016, sorta.) Also, is it weird that in so many other Bill Murray roles, he either dies or is dead from the start of his appearance?
Overall, I liked it? Both it and 2016 felt like they were missing a crucial part of the Ghostbusters tone, but then it would always be a tough movie to match. My favorite parts were when Phoebe and the others were learning about the past and trying out the new equipment, and yes, Ghost Egon (and his influence earlier in the movie) gave me the sniffles. I wonder how he reconciled BEING the very creature he spent so much of his life busting?
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
So I watched this movie about numerous malevolent forces converging to destroy a small town and its people.
And now besides the Walmart and the fracking, they have to put up with ghosts as well. Seriously, did anyone find it surprisingly how many fracking references there were?
I went into this one mostly blind, out side of knowing the avclub (which is sounding increasingly like a ghost itself these days) didn't like it. I went in assuming that Finn McStrangerThings would be the main character, but Phoebe ending up being the case, which is good as she's the best character in the show.
I enjoyed it going in but found some stuff to be odd about it. Like I know the 2016 movie took place in different continuity, but this movie more or less retconned Ghostbusters 2 and the video game sequel out of existence. At the same time, it had way too many references to the original. A new version of Slimer, Shandor, Gozer, the Gatekeeper and Keymaster, etc. At least the Baby Staypuffs were pretty cute. I would have gone with a new threat entirely. There also are some Egon lore I'm not sure about. Like, who did he have a kid WITH? You'd think he and Callie would at least acknowledge her mom. Is it supposed to be Janine? If so, you'd think her role would be larger.
I did appreciate and was surprised to see all of the original Ghostbusters. Ackroyd and Hudson I expected, but Bill Murray I did not expect. Either he's mellowed out with age or he's fine appearing in Ghostbusters as long as the torch gets passed (like it did in the video game and 2016, sorta.) Also, is it weird that in so many other Bill Murray roles, he either dies or is dead from the start of his appearance?
Overall, I liked it? Both it and 2016 felt like they were missing a crucial part of the Ghostbusters tone, but then it would always be a tough movie to match. My favorite parts were when Phoebe and the others were learning about the past and trying out the new equipment, and yes, Ghost Egon (and his influence earlier in the movie) gave me the sniffles. I wonder how he reconciled BEING the very creature he spent so much of his life busting?
I think Murray mellowed once Ramis died. He used to shit on Groundhog Day and after Ramis died he went to the musical version and cried. Probably realized being a dick for decades at a time was a waste.
I finally understand why Muncher didn't just phase through the bars. He didn't want to lose the metal in his belly.
Wait. That means the metal is also compressed into the trap? Is it a pocket dimension?
Wanna try my Mario Maker levels?
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09 P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359 Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
This movie was fucking great.
Phoebe was 100% the hero through and through, everyone else was her sidekick, and I am here for it.
I loved that even though she was smart and clearly on the spectrum in some form or another, nobody even once made fun of her for it or belittled her or made her into inspiration porn or any of the other constant terrible tropes that exist everywhere else. She was just a person.
Posts
The entire thing hasn't been thought through to the most basic of fundamentals. Let's be generous and say Carrie Coon is playing 30 at best, that means Egon has spent the last 25 to 20 years acting completely out of character, preventing his friends from being Ghostbusters which meant a lot to Winston and Ray at least, abandoned his daughter, her mother, all to take on some task that for some reason took over 20 years and would have easily been resolved had he included the Ghostbusters. The same ones who bought into an apartment building built of magic metal to channel ghosts. Which means they all have to act out of character as well.
The film just can't have it both ways. It has sentimental moments but they're with an invisible force who is actively not engaging with his grandson or daughter for the first two thirds of the film. The intent and obviously the interpretation for many is that Egon is a hero who sacrificed everything to save the world, but the reality is the film is pretty much a character assassination and requires Egon to be completely out of character in every way from the logical, dispassionate guy he was.
I got that it was meant to be sentimental, it just didn't hit home. Maybe it would have been better if the OGbusters had turned up earlier in the film to interact more. To know they didn't even know their comrade was dead? What an awful backstory Reitman and Kenan made for our heroes, and again because of Coon's age, this has to have been going on pretty much from 1989. It's not unbelievable for Harold Ramis to have a 40 year old daughter, he has one, but it's unbelievable for Egon to have one.
Does the movie say,
I don't know that it worked for the characters as established, but it certainly worked in that I was seeing them as the actors saying goodbye to their friend and partner.
The likeness managed to not fall into the uncanny either and that in itself is a damn miracle. No dead Luke Skywalker eyes or any of the other pitfalls larger, more powerful franchises have stepped in.
We will see if the wound reopens tonight at my second viewing.
Spotted at my local grocery store
I dont think writing it is a job that should have been given to Reitman or Gil Kenan. Neither has any background in anything like Ghostbusters and Kenans work is all pretty terrible to mediocre. The ending specifically was written by someone who's never dealt with where special effects should be happening in relation to everything else going on. Neither of them have Aykroyd's or ramis's writing background or experience in comedy especially. That isn't to say Reitman shouldn't have directed, he was fine, but ultimately I think some of the casting was a misfire and that's on him, and certainly the flat ending is his responsibility as well.
Unless I'm missing a credit I'm surprised at least Aykroyd didn't write the story before it was refined into the shooting script. You need a nut job like Aykroyd to provide the underlying lore and reason why any of this is happening.
And that's a bummer, because there are some really promising bits where Phoebe is following Egon's ghost around, and digging into what happened in the first movie. I know one of the major concerns going into this movie was that it was going to mythologize the original movie a little too reverently, and that...isn't entirely wrong, given all of the loving shots of various Ghostbusters props. Where the movie unabashedly works are when Phoebe is working with her grandpa's ghost to fix a proton pack, or when she goes out into a field and obliterates a target with a proton pack. When the movie is like, "isn't this stuff important," it's doesn't work. It's when the movie goes, "isn't this shit sick as hell," when it absolutely works, because those props are cool as shit, the sounds they make are cool as shit, and it effectively taps into why kids latched onto the original. Where the nostalgia for the original is effective is where it taps into how most people watching know that Harold Ramis died, and it taps into the reality of that through his granddaughter. Phoebe watching youtube clips of the original Ghostbusters, focusing on the grandfather she never knew? That's the thread they should have been hitting the whole time.
I don't know what they needed to do with the rest of the cast of this. My main instinct would have been to cut Trevor entirely, since the main thing he brings to this movie is that he fixes the Ectomobile and drives it, which Phoebe is too young to do. I also don't especially like Finn Wolfhard. If you keep him around, and you want to still have him work at the diner...tie it into his family's financial problems? It's weird that the movie sends him there solely because he has a crush that doesn't really go anywhere instead of him getting a job to, I dunno, help his family out? Carrie Coon should have probably...also gotten a job? It's extremely weird that she didn't? Podcast should have...had a human name, and uh they should have made his personality less, "he has a podcast," than, "he is into occult stuff so much he does a podcast." Is that splitting hairs a bit? Yes, absolutely, but it would have been less weird than what it looks like here, which is that maybe one of the screenwriters was like, "what are kids into now," and settled on "podcasts," which is...improbable. Paul Rudd's character is fine. No real notes there.
One other note is that when they were like "this wall predicted things," they should have...well, they should have done anything other than just list years and have someone go, "oh, like when this happened," but if they were going to do that, they should have skipped 1945. Can't believe there were two movies this month that stepped on the rake of, "let's reference when America nuked two fucking cities and tie it explicitly into our absurd genre story," especially when this one knew enough to not like...explicitly say what happened in 1945.
The ghost Harold Ramis bit at the end almost worked for me. I wish they'd lingered on the shots of him as a ghost for much less time than they actually did. For a moment there, I thought the initial shot you see of him, where he's helping Phoebe hold position firing the proton gun and all you see is his ghostly arm, was going to be all there was. And I think that would have been enough for me! The earlier scenes, of him moving lamps and playing chess and leading his family to signs that he loved them, those all really worked for me.
I love the little mini-sta puft guys though, very strong response to that weird period after Baby Groot and Baby Yoda where goddamned everything was adding a baby version of something right up until baby Mr. Peanut killed that trend dead. Leading off with "aren't they so cute," and immediately pivoting into that sequence was very good and more of the ghost scenes needed that energy
Pretty chilly for GA, but it was clear with no other weather so that was lucky.
Gonna pour out a Coke and some Cheez-Its to the legend tonight.
Spoiler: They didn't like it. The more time I have away from it, the more I realize it's just not a Ghostbusters film. It's a coming-of-age dramedy and nothing like what it's based on, lacking that same universal appeal to adults and kids that the first one had. If you're an adult who didn't grow up on the originals, I'm not sure you could like it.
Really hoping a director's cut give things room to breath and like, a little more connective tissue.
Anyway, Adam Savage got a peak at the new Hasbro pack and I've already put in an order for all the real parts to replace on it because I have a disease.
Yeah I love RLM, and I'll check this out after I see the film, but their best wheelhouse is mocking youtube nerds and watching crappy movies and tearing them apart, or talking about things they adore.
Like I agreed with like, half, of their takes on the new Star Wars movies, so I'm sure I'll only agree with half of this as well.
A real Walmart in rural Oklahoma would be far drearier. Hell, the suburban Walmarts I've been to are plenty dreary.
Unsurprisingly, I thought the mini-Pufts were great and that whole scene was highly entertaining.
I don't think I'll bother writing up any detailed reviews. I would just feel like I had to respond to the negative criticism and nobody wants to read that, especially if they saw the movie entirely differently than I did.
I think Jason Reitman nailed this thing and 90-95% of it is better than I expected it to be and the rest is forgivable due to the difficulty of doing a decades-later sequel. The actors managed emotion and nuance without exposition-dumping constantly. The action/trapping sequences were a load of fun to watch, and the humor was consistent throughout.
I'm too deep into this thing to be able to go through the play-by-play without feeling like I'm telling people who didn't like it that they were wrong. I'll let the box office decide and keep my discussions about the film to my irl friend circles.
I don't think the BO is a fair judge, look at the Transformers films. That said I want it to succeed. I do WANT more Ghostbusters, just ideally with a different creative team behind it. At the least, different writers.
I got a few dozen dorks in flight-suits from around the country I've been standing around with the last week talking about how much we think this movie ruled. Lots of these folks were pretty divided amongst each-other about the last movie but are far more unified with this, even though it was pretty different from the original. We'd likely love a sequel if the Reitmans and the actors are up for doing this again.
If they change the team to some other group of people I'm going all the way down to between "cautiously optimistic" and "active dread".
I am respecting there is a diverse range of reactions here. I'll let the ridiculous comparison to the Michael Bay Transformers movies slide for now but don't push it.
The colander actually got cheers in all of the showings I saw. People liked that reference.
Visual nods are don't bother me so much as long as they don't stop the plot, but they're better when they're not in center frame for too many beats. I like an inside joke or background reference. There's a box of Cheez-its that barely breaks frame, for instance. I haven't seen anyone complain about that but fans spotted it.
I guess some of the oddness of this stuff was that I went and saw this with a buddy who hadn't seen the first two movies, and he could tell when something was a reference even if he didn't know what the reference was.
But here's the thing: if they do another one of these (and since one did pretty well, there's a good chance they will), hopefully they'll have gotten this out of their system and build around the newer stuff they've brought to the table. I liked a lot of the pieces here, and hopefully they can get out of their own way a bit more. At the very least, I'd like them to build the next one around Phoebe again
The second movie will be an exercise in letting go of the past (killing it if you have to) and after a large fan backlash they will go back to fighting evil pink slime in movie three.
And I fucking loved it
I'm slightly glad I got some negative, but non-spoilery, opinions from this thread before going in - it made me not know what to expect. And I can see the common thread of disappointment in Afterlife seems to be failed expectations. I get that! But I enjoyed what I saw.
My two nitpicks
Also Aykroyd and Murray had some just terrible line reads, their entrance was slow as molasses, and I was afraid the finale was going to strangle itself to death. And then it shifted away from the OGs, regained some momentum and finished quite well. If they continue with this cast I hope Aykroyd and Murray are not onscreen again.
Also if this gets a sequel, I hope Winston's "one employee" is Luis Tully. I'd love to see Rick Moranis again
I'm sorry this didn't work for some of you, and I think your criticisms are valid, but I had a ton of fun
More specific stuff
I'm trying to think if any of the Easter Eggs were on the "oh, cute" side instead of the worst excesses of Star Trek Into Darkness and the Rogue One ones... I guess the kids getting in trouble felt natural to the story of this movie and not just a callback to similar scenes in 1 and 2.
The weird thing is, unless I missed something, they could have just had
I could go on about weird pacing, characters that feel superfluous (you could seriously remove Trevor and lose very little, and then you have Ivo Shandor), and this movie’s inability to stop reminding me the other movies exist like I’m a baby bird who just wanted to have my childhood spat back into my mouth. There’s good ideas there, but the movie is way too shackled to the past to stand on its own two feet. The protagonists being led around by a literal ghost of the original team is almost too on-the-nose as an encapsulation of this movie’s problem.
fwiw
That's not to refute your other points, but I do feel like a lot of the fears that they were gonna have everyone forget about the events of Ghostbusters 1 and 2 in-universe ended up being pretty unfounded
I went into this one mostly blind, out side of knowing the avclub (which is sounding increasingly like a ghost itself these days) didn't like it. I went in assuming that Finn McStrangerThings would be the main character, but Phoebe ending up being the case, which is good as she's the best character in the show.
I enjoyed it going in but found some stuff to be odd about it. Like I know the 2016 movie took place in different continuity, but this movie more or less retconned Ghostbusters 2 and the video game sequel out of existence. At the same time, it had way too many references to the original. A new version of Slimer, Shandor, Gozer, the Gatekeeper and Keymaster, etc. At least the Baby Staypuffs were pretty cute. I would have gone with a new threat entirely. There also are some Egon lore I'm not sure about. Like, who did he have a kid WITH? You'd think he and Callie would at least acknowledge her mom. Is it supposed to be Janine? If so, you'd think her role would be larger.
I did appreciate and was surprised to see all of the original Ghostbusters. Ackroyd and Hudson I expected, but Bill Murray I did not expect. Either he's mellowed out with age or he's fine appearing in Ghostbusters as long as the torch gets passed (like it did in the video game and 2016, sorta.) Also, is it weird that in so many other Bill Murray roles, he either dies or is dead from the start of his appearance?
Overall, I liked it? Both it and 2016 felt like they were missing a crucial part of the Ghostbusters tone, but then it would always be a tough movie to match. My favorite parts were when Phoebe and the others were learning about the past and trying out the new equipment, and yes, Ghost Egon (and his influence earlier in the movie) gave me the sniffles. I wonder how he reconciled BEING the very creature he spent so much of his life busting?
I think Murray mellowed once Ramis died. He used to shit on Groundhog Day and after Ramis died he went to the musical version and cried. Probably realized being a dick for decades at a time was a waste.
Wait. That means the metal is also compressed into the trap? Is it a pocket dimension?
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09
P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359
Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E
I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
See my profile here!
I loved that even though she was smart and clearly on the spectrum in some form or another, nobody even once made fun of her for it or belittled her or made her into inspiration porn or any of the other constant terrible tropes that exist everywhere else. She was just a person.