Ghostbusters Afterlife Vs 2016s Reboot Which Is Better

Ghostbusters: Afterlife Vs 2016’s Reboot: Which Is Better?

Contents

Ghostbusters: Afterlife aims to tap into the franchise’s considerable reserves of nostalgia, but is it a better movie than the 2016 reboot?

You Are Reading :[thien_display_title]

Ghostbusters Afterlife Vs 2016s Reboot Which Is Better

The recent release of Ghostbusters: Afterlife has prompted inevitable comparisons with the franchise’s largely forgotten 2016 reboot – but which is the better movie? Ghostbusters: Afterlife marks the second reboot of the Ghostbusters franchise within five years, as director Jason Reitman helms a return to the original Ghostbusters 1984 continuity. Set 32 years after the events of the second film, Callie (Carrie Coon) and her two children move to a small town in Oklahoma, where they discover an undeniable connection to the original Ghostbusters’ secret legacy in a narrative jam-packed with nostalgia-inducing components.

Afterlife’s direct sequel ties to the first two Ghostbusters films sit in stark contrast with the franchise’s attempted 2016 reboot, in which Paul Feig reimagines Ivan Reitman’s classic ghost hunting team. Melissa McCarthy heads the gender-swapped Ghostbusters as Dr. Abigail Yates, who musters her estranged physicist friends to combat Rowan North’s (Neil Casey) ill-conceived dabblings in the supernatural. Despite receiving high praise for its ambitious attempt at a wholly original franchise adaptation, the 2016 Ghostbusters still drew enough criticism for its messy story and CGI to warrant cancellation, with its initially planned sequel eventually reincarnated as Jason Reitman’s Ghostbusters: Afterlife.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife narrowly beats out its 2016 reboot rival simply due to the waves of nostalgia it crests upon. Afterlife director Jason Reitman presciently follows in his father’s footsteps to make his film an exercise in fanservice, which ultimately translates into a wholly enjoyable motion picture. While Ghostbusters 2016 must be praised for its ambition in re-branding the Ghostbusters team, its story flounders without the foundation of Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters II to fall back on in its less compelling moments.

How Ghostbusters: Afterlife Is Being Received

Ghostbusters Afterlife Vs 2016s Reboot Which Is Better

Critical reception is largely split to date on Ghostbusters: Afterlife, with the series’ franchise revival elements largely propped up by the film’s consistent exercises in nostalgia. Praise for Ghostbusters: Afterlife undoubtedly crests on the movie’s overt willingness to pay homage to its original predecessors, with the decision to bring back Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd in their original roles a simple, yet wholly effective masterstroke by Reitman. In this way, Ghostbusters: Afterlife’s formulaic narrative approach does not detract from its overall impact, as the film is littered with Easter eggs for fans of the original Ghostbusters films to discover.

See also  iPhone Owners Can Now Add A Gmail iOS 14 Widget To The Home Screen

Yet, despite harking back to Ivan Reitman’s classic films, Ghostbusters: Afterlife is also plagued by some familiar reboot problems. Peter Debruge of Variety describes the film as an “unnecessary but enjoyable movie,” and adds that “The good news for Ghostbusters fans is that Afterlife does nothing to tarnish what has come before.” The issue here, therefore, is the Ghostbusters: Afterlife movie’s ability to exist as a standalone film, which often feels hollow when not directly backed by the fantastical elements of the original movies, such as Mr. Stay-Puft and Gozer. Critics have also taken issue with the gratuitous fanservice that Afterlife employs, which, while cheaply enjoyable, often arrives at the expense of narrative cohesion at various junctures in the movie.

Why The Reviews For Ghostbusters 2016 Are So Mixed

Ghostbusters Afterlife Vs 2016s Reboot Which Is Better

Ghostbusters 2016 is intended as much more of a standalone project, meaning its ties to the Ghostbusters franchise are much less frequent and binding. Ghostbusters 2016 undoubtedly hits some high notes, with critics unanimous on the film’s delightful, female-led cast that elevate an otherwise average script. Comedy stalwarts Melissa McCarthy (The Starling) and Kristen Wiig shine in their roles as estranged-friends-turned-particle-physicists rising to meet a paranormal threat. The cast’s on-screen chemistry suffered from prematurely determined criticism that the all-female cast Feig assembled was a gimmick prior to release, with Ghostbusters’ best moments directly deriving from Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones’ continued banter.

While Aykroyd and Murray still appear in light-hearted cameo roles for the movie, they cannot stop the inevitable paling of Ghostbusters 2016 in comparison to the 1984 original. Despite Ghostbusters 2016’s insistence on carving out a new path for the franchise, a weak script and poor CGI effects, despite the movie’s big budget, derail the film’s efforts at reboot success. J.R. Kinnard of PopMatters perfectly summarized the extended lukewarm response to Ghostbusters 2016 by stating, “It feels like a safe, flavorless recipe prepared from gourmet ingredients.” In this way, it is this same inability to utilize the high points of a stellar cast and generous budget that led to a Ghostbusters sequel’s cancellation, with very little by way of public outcry following Sony Pictures’ final announcement.

See also  Why Russell T Davies Needs To Abandon Doctor Who’s Timeless Child Story

Why Ghostbusters: Afterlife Is Better Than The 2016 Reboot

Although Ghostbusters 2016 brings fun new elements to the table, Ghostbusters: Afterlife succeeds because it understands how to harness the increasingly potent emotion of nostalgia. In an age of half-baked reboots, Ghostbusters: Afterlife functions as an unabashed homage to the classic Ivan Reitman films from which it derives most of its story beats. Ghostbusters: Afterlife knows that bringing back Gozer instead of conjuring a new spiritual opponent evokes memories of the 1984 original, while allowing easy dialogue to flourish between the returning Ghostbusters and their next generation of recruits.

Whereas Ghostbusters 2016 can be classified as a hard reboot that keeps the original’s spirit in name and branding only, Ghostbusters: Afterlife does not try to reinvent the proverbial wheel. Instead, Afterlife utilizes the same palette, aesthetic, and narrative framework that brought the 1984 original such immediate commercial success some 36 years ago. While Afterlife’s detractors will point to a certain laziness in recycling nostalgic characters and scenes, the fact that Jason Reitman continues his father’s original storylines makes Afterlife as an homage feel less cynical and more heartfelt with every scene.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife’s storyline also trumps Ghostbusters 2016 based on the differences in expositional load between the two films. Functioning as a full reboot, Ghostbusters 2016 has to set the scene from scratch, introducing all of its new lead characters in cold reveals before eventually ramping up to the threat facing New York. In contrast, Ghostbusters: Afterlife’s basic story has already been established by the two films directly preceding it, meaning that once Phoebe (McKenna Grace) finds the PKE Meter in her father’s old belongings, Reitman can dive seamlessly back into the familiar ghost-hunting narrative audiences know and love. Ghostbusters: Afterlife may well not break any new ground, but its willingness to acknowledge its inferiority to the classic 1980s Ghostbusters installments allows the film to flourish as a franchise love letter in a way Ghostbusters 2016 simply cannot.

Link Source : https://screenrant.com/ghostbusters-afterlife-reboot-movie-comparison-better/

Movies -