GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Why Ghostbusters: Afterlife's New Heroes Know Nothing About The First Two Movies

In Ghostbusters: Afterlife, the new heroes have never heard of ghostbusting or the likes of Gozer.

8 Comments

With the release of Ghostbusters: Afterlife, audiences will be introduced to an entirely new generation of ghostbusting as a young cast takes center stage and straps on proton packs to fight back against the spirit world. Interestingly, those new characters aren't all that familiar with the events of the first two Ghostbusters movies. Is that surprising, though?

It's been nearly 30 years since the first Ghostbusters film hit theaters and in terms of story, the same amount of time has passed since Gozer was first unleashed on New York City and the Ghostbusters initially rose to prominence. With three decades having come and gone, Afterlife co-writers Jason Reitman and Gil Kenan thought it seemed reasonable to expect the next generation would be in the dark about what happened.

"There are things that break through the sort of the murk or the fog of time and there are other things that perhaps are important when you're living through them, maybe something that rises to the level of an anecdote or a blip," Kenan explained to GameSpot, noting the Cuban Missile Crisis as a major world event which has faded in recognition over the years. "But many, many other stories, including ones that were consequential at the time, sort of disappear into the rearview mirror."

He continued, "It felt to us like a safe assumption to make that a young character like Phoebe could have grown up in a world where the events of 1984 are lost to her general knowledge."

While there would certainly be some kids that have knowledge of the events of ghosts invading New York City in 1984, that would not necessarily be the case across the board. After all, by the beginning of Ghostbusters 2 the team was seen as a joke, with Winston (Ernie Hudson) and Ray (Dan Aykroyd) being underappreciated birthday party entertainers. Perhaps forgetting the Ghostbusters was easier than anyone thought.

Whatever the case, there will be a history lesson soon enough. According to GameSpot's review of the film, Ghostbusters: Afterlife "strike[s] a balance between action, family-friendly levels of horror, and a comedic tone that doesn't overpower the story. There are some decent scares in the movie, but nothing that should be too overwhelming for younger audiences. And while the other Ghostbusters films are undoubtedly in the comedy/horror genre, Afterlife is a sort of adventure movie more akin to The Goonies than anything else. It's about the journey these kids go on as they figure out how to be Ghostbusters in order to save their town, and the world. And that's when Afterlife is at its strongest."

Ghostbusters: Afterlife hits theaters on November 19.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 8 comments about this story
8 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for skyhighgam3r
SkyHighGam3r

4788

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

"It's been nearly 30 years"
30 years would have been 2014
It's been almost 40.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ives74
Ives74

305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

No one wanted 2016 GB to be bad. Who the hell hopes a movie will be bad? "I'm gonna hate this so MUCH!" It just was because of horrible writing and a total lack of actual characters. Instead they just made everyone sarcastic and loud. This one I think is a bit more respectful of the originals but I still don't think that makes it a valid movie. The first one worked well mostly because of the people involved and their inherent energy. They didn't even know what it was while they were making it and some magic happened. That's really it for the franchese. The second one fell far short of the first and then it got marketed to death, put on a shelf, and then turned into the 2016 abomination. What people love is the spirit of the first one. I'll take it further. What people love is Bill Murray not completely over this idea and not chekced out. Look at him in the second one and definitley in 2016. He couldn't be less into what he's being forced to do. So again, I didn't want the 2016 one to be bad and I don't want this one to be bad. But I can't help feeling like maybe things should be left alone.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jenovaschilld
jenovaschilld

8029

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@ives74: In cinema, one law is as natural as that of gravity, light or the speed of .... Speed 1994' - A successful film ..... it is gonna get remade, copied, sequel-ed, prequel-ed, and eventually a Netflix series, to death and back and rebirth.

But so has everything in human history when it comes to story telling. I do not fault the 2016 movie, or even this one coming out, regardless of how good or bad it is. It is just part of what all media is, a retelling of a great tale.

In a vacuum or universe where the original Ghostbusters had never existed would the 2016 movie been good on its own?.... nah it was still weak, but this movie coming out and any movie I watch, I try my best to let it stand on its own merit, and not judge it by an imaginary feeling or sentimentality, I once had decades ago.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lonewolf1044
lonewolf1044

4987

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

I feel no movie that involves the Ghostbusters will ever surpass the first two as the main characters are cemented classics and it does not matter too greatly who the new character are. I want the the new movie to do well but my mind is left with the first two maybe because it was part of the fabulous 80's I don't know for an awful lot of classics came out during that time.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64f32fa0d8a48
deactivated-64f32fa0d8a48

608

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

Even if it were dismissed as fake I'm pretty sure a ghost rampaging around the city would remain relevant for decades. Why bother explaining it at all if it's not relevant to the story. Just let it be its own thing and not worry about where it falls on the timeline or even making a consistent timeline at all.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for oddshroom
OddShroom

568

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@rizenstrom: or, ya know, a giant green woman strolling through the city blasting rock music.

2 • 
Avatar image for bingoh
bingoh

199

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@oddshroom: Or a 100 ft marshmallow man ravaging Midtown...

2 • 
Avatar image for oddshroom
OddShroom

568

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@bingoh: even as a "classic" brand of marshmallows, Lady Liberty is still far more iconic than a Marshmallow Mascot. Plus she kicked ass. That would be major world historical events, mallow too. Seems a bit off.

2 •