Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) An Analysis

Who are you going to call? Again?

After the disaster that the 2016 film was, we’re ready to call the originals again I’m pleased to say. Only this time, we’re not in New York City, and we have newer faces again… or do we?

Ghostbusters: Afterlife is the ultimate product that we have been asking for since rumours of a third Ghostbusters film began emerging, and it truly is a sequel to the originals. In 2021, a familiar face tries to stop Gozer all by himself, but he fails. Can our new characters stop it... after they discover a connection to a true legend? What can that legend be?

To begin with, this film has no connections to the 2016 reboot directed by Paul Feig, which is a plus thanks to how terrible that film is. It was actually the failure of that film that motivated the production of this new sequel to the originals. Thanks to Bill Murray’s refusal to commit to a third Ghostbusters film, potentially due to the estrangement between him and Harold Ramis, a third Ghostbusters film never came to fruition. When Harold Ramis passed away in 2014, Sony and Columbia rebooted the series, which came in the form of the 2016 film. When that film was a financial failure, they decided to carry on with the originals instead.

This film is packed with the same kind of horror-like elements, laughs and cuteness that the original possessed. Callie, Trevor and Phoebe, whom this film focusses on are the daughter and grandchildren of Egon Spengler, the Ghostbuster played by Harold Ramis. Initially, they are resentful towards him because he was estranged from Callie in the 80s, which means Callie was an infant during the events of the original. However, this is where we learn more about the character Egon Spengler, although he seemed more devoted to his work in the original, he clearly cared about his family more than she thought. Typically, nowadays and perhaps back in the 80s, those who are intelligent always end up being single and not caring much about their families because they seem married to their work. Egon didn’t turn out like that, even though he struck people like that in the original, despite his romantic feelings for Janine Melnitz.

Here, with regards to the scarier parts I need to address a very heavy criticism I had of the 2016 reboot. Dan Aykroyd, who played Raymond Stantz in the original stated that the 2016 is scarier than the original. Aykroyd states this as he was one of the producers of the 2016 film. I personally do not agree. If anyone has seen the original Ghostbusters, they will vividly remember the scene were Sigourney Weaver is abducted by one of the terror-dog monster. The arms bursting from the upholstery of her chair scared me witless the first time I ever saw that scene, and I can still remember the trauma I endured from seeing that scene by itself. The terror dogs are absent from the 2016 film, and that is what keeps it from beings scarier than the original. The terror dogs thankfully return in Afterlife, and one scene perfectly epitomises how scary they were in the original.

Some of the negatives about Afterlife were that, although fans accept that it is more interesting, the film was not set in New York City which is the core setting for a Ghostbusters film in my opinion. This film was set in a rural country town called Summerville, an old town that looked like it was on the precipice of becoming a ghost town.

Admittedly this is more horror movie-like, a little like how The Evil Dead takes place in a deserted cabin deep in a forest. Essentially the deeper into the rural areas the setting of a film is, the scarier it is thanks to there being no help for the heroes from the outside world.

But a film can be just as scary in the depths of a major city, such as it has been reported that the latest Scream film will be set in New York City. In New York City, there are so many people that everyone will simply shrug their shoulders and think "Someone else'll take care of them," and in the end the heroes get no help.

Also the film has kids as its heroes which always makes it more dramatic due to their naivety and vulnerability, so a negative can be turned into a positive. But I still feel it should have been set in New York.

Another negative is how little [spoiler alert] the original Ghostbusters appear. Although their appearance in the move is *extremely* poignant in a fantastic way (perhaps one of the most poignant moments in the entire franchise), they are little more than cameos and only appear as like Chekov's Gun.

It’s revealed that between the events of Ghostbusters II and Afterlife, paranormal activity in New York City died down and as a consequence there was no new work for the original team. They had no choice but to disband and pursue other careers, although Egon tried to convince them of something else.

Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) is revealed to have since married Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) and gone back to academia, where he taught advertising and promotion.

To make up for some of the racial discrimination he was subjected to that was the norm in the eighties, Winston started working in finance and is now a multi-millionaire businessman. The racial discrimination he was subjected to in the eighties include being seen as a second hand person, as well as being cropped out on some VHS releases before the film was released on DVD and Blu-Ray. So I must praise how they’ve made up for that.

In what has to be Afterlife’s biggest and perhaps only reference to Ghostbusters II, Ray has gone back to running his tiny book store “Ray’s Occult Books”.

This is also another negative I must point out, there are extremely few references to Ghostbusters II in Afterlife, so few that it feels like a sequel that’s guilty of what Terminator: Dark Fate did. Terminator: Dark Fate deliberately ignored Rise of The Machines, Salvation and Genisys, and continues directly from Terminator: Judgement Day (1991). The lack of references to Ghostbusters II makes Afterlife feel as if it ignores the events of that film and continues directly from the original, like Dark Fate.

There is absolutely no mention of Vigo The Carpathian, the supernatural entity they have to deal with in II or the slime that grows and expands with negative human emotions. What's it called again? Psycho... Psychomagno...what?

If for example, Vigo The Carpathian worked with Gozer in Afterlife, that would perfectly tie the three films together. More aspects that could have tied the three film together better, would be the inclusion of Oscar Barrett, Dana Barrett’s son who was an infant in II. What if he had a small family of his own, and lived in Summerville during the events of Afterlife?

Another feature that could have added more references to II would be the river of slime that flowed underneath the museum of art, what if it had a downstream that led to the Shandor Mine featured in Afterlife?

Another factor is the Ecto-1 car. In II, when the Ghostbusters have their judicial restraining order lifted, they seem to rebuild the car with a new logo, the one with the ghost showing two fingers and more L.E.D logos and banners on top. Yet when we see the ruins of the Ecto-1 in Afterlife, it’s identical to the original appearance: there are no L.E.D logos and banners on top and it sports the old logo and not the logo with the two fingers showing as seen in II.

One might wonder, did the Ghostbusters buy another Cadillac and adorn it with the new features alongside the original one? If not, why does the Ecto-1 appear the same as it does in the original? Another ignorance towards II… what if the two cars appeared together?

With regards to Egon Spengler, he tried to convince the others that their lack of business didn’t matter because Gozer was rising again. The others didn’t believe him, so he set about the task himself. He stole everything and estranged himself from his colleagues, which is actually a references to the real life estrangement between Bill Murray and Harold Ramis.

It is revealed that when they were filming Groundhog Day (1993) in the 90s, a creative difference caused Murray and Ramis to fall out. Murray and Ramis didn’t speak for over twenty years, which is potentially one of the reasons why a third Ghostbusters film that followed the original characters didn’t happen for so long. Thankfully, the two reconciled just months before the latter passed away.

The visual effects and props are very true to their original form, and it was also very interesting to see the proton packs disassembled, to see how they worked. I also liked how much of a family person Egon Spengler had become even though he was a ghost, and I feel that his ghost looks perfectly like how Harold Ramis would look like if he was still with us today.

The proton beams are very true to their original form and what they’re capable of (destroying objects unintentionally and catching ghosts). Although they sometimes malfunction thanks to age. Gozer’s appearance is further enhanced, she can now be transparent and lightning can be seen erupting inside of her. I also feel that Olivia Wilde, who plays her performed the role very effectively.

The terror dogs are very true to their original appearance as they appear in the original, and they even appear more menacing thanks to advanced special effects. The zombie taxi driver that we see in the original is referenced in a coffee shop in Afterlife, and the new ghost “muncher” who the kids capture is very clearly inspired by Slimer in the original.

Slimer did appear in the 2016 reboot, which in my opinion is where that film was missed opportunity. That film, I feel wasn’t marketed correctly. When its first theatrical trailer was released on YouTube (which has become the most disliked video on YouTube with over one million dislikes, beating the music video to "Baby" by Justin Bieber), some title cards had references to the originals which would indicate sequel status. Yet that film ignores the originals. If that trailer said something like “From the makers of the original classic… comes a new vision” it would have done much better, because the 2016 film worked more as remake rather than a reboot. If the trailer kept its saying “Thirty Years Ago, Four Scientists Saved New York, This Summer, A New Team, Will Answer The Call,” the 2016 film should have been a sequel. That way the obvious talents of Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones wouldn’t have been wasted.

In fact, in 2017 a Ghostbusters comic book series was released called Ghostbusters 101, in which the original team joined forces with the 2016 team. If the 2016 film told that kind of story, it would have been much better.

Other than those issues, I feel that Afterlife is a true sequel to the originals, and I look forward to seeing the sequel to this film when it’s released in December 2023.

Therefore dear readers, you all know the question… and you know the answer.

Who Ya Gonna Call!?

GHOSTBUSTERS!

In Loving Memory Of Harold Allen Ramis.

November 21st, 1944 - February 24th, 2014

References

Films

Ghostbusters. 1984. [Film]. Directed by Ivan Reitman. USA: Columbia Pictures.

Ghostbusters II. 1989. [Film]. Directed by Ivan Reitman. USA: Columbia Pictures.

Ghostbusters. 2016. [Film]. Directed by Paul Fieg. USA: Columbia Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, Ghost Corps.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife. 2021. [Film]. Directed by Jason Reitman. USA: Columbia Pictures, Bron Creative, Ghost Corps.

Images

Figs 2, 10, 18, 23. Ghostbusters, directed by Ivan Reitman. (1984, Columbia Pictures).

Figs 12, 14-17, 19. Ghostbusters II, directed by Ivan Reitman. (1989, Columbia Pictures)

Figs 1, 3-9, 11, 13, 20-22, 24. Ghostbusters: Afterlife, directed by Jason Reitman. (2021, Columbia Pictures, Bron Creative, Ghost Corps).

Fig 25: Ghostbusters, directed by Paul Fieg. (2016, Columbia Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, Ghost Corps)

Fig 26: Burnham, Schoening, Delgado: Ghostbusters 101. IDW Publishing. March, 2017.

International Poster for Ghostbusters: Afterlife. Released September 9th 2021. Available at: https://ghostbusters.fandom.com/wiki/Ghostbusters:_Afterlife

Hooch. 2009. Harold Ramis. [Image]. Available at: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Harold_Ramis_Oct_2009.jpg. [Accessed 25/11/2022]