I know I'm not the only person on Earth who actually liked GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE, and thought the movie used The Ghost of Harold Ramis with surprising sensitivity—but it sure feels that way.
It's surprising how watching a film without the heightened expectations that come along with the first viewing can make it a much more enjoyable experience. I actually had a good time re-watching Afterlife yesterday with my son and still got teary-eyed at the end.
I both agree and disagree. I think there's something odd about resurrecting dead actors, but when it's done out of reverence, I personally find it powerful. I didn't think much of Ghostbusters Afterlife as a movie overall, but when Egon showed up and helped save the day with his old teammates/make family amends, then the scene ends with a dedication to him, it was touching.
And now for a little irony - my 8 year-old selected a movie to watch with me for Father's Day, so I just finished watching Ghostbusters Afterlife. So now my son is a living version of that targeted advertising that pops up in your Facebook feed.
Dear Gawd, what can be done about CGI “actors”? Especially this grave-robbing custom of digitally resurrecting dead actors for the sake of. . . What, exactly? Continuity? Nostalgia? I say ban the whole thing or pay the estate as much money as you would have given a living actor for the role.
Hear, hear. When Deepfake Leia showed up in Rogue One it just took me completely out of the movie (which I otherwise loved, on the balance) -- all I was thinking about was if that was some uncannily good look-alike actress, or unused footage they'd spliced in, or what -- didn't figure it out until the credits rolled. I didn't feel EMOTIONAL or NOSTALGIC or anything, just... confused.
Comparatively, I DID get teary-eyed when Real Leia in The Last Jedi said "I'll always be with you" because that actually was Carrie Fisher and I knew that would be the last time we saw her (scrap footage weirdly spliced into Rise of Skywalker notwithstanding, I guess). Because she's a real person, and that's part of the deal. I don't want some cartoon version, no matter how "realistic", I want a person I can connect with - that's the whole point of performance! Hollywood is just hell bent on making these CGI "actors" a thing, presumably for cost/anti-labor reasons, but that's like a restaurant trying to sell you a picture of a steak on a plate. I just hope to god enough of the audience agrees that this never actually catches on.
My comment is not specifically about CGI "Actors", but wow was it shocking how bad the CGI was in this movie, especially after reading about the 30th anniversary of Jurassic Park over the last two weeks. It was awful CGI. The babies, the effing babies.
I get it - Miller deserves every Grant Gustin is "Better Than Ezra" joke and then some, but when I heard close to 2 years ago that Michael Keaton was returning as Batman for this, I didn't even care who played Flash. I am not going to see this movie because of Ezra Miller, I purely want to see Michael Keaton back. Everything else is just filler.
To make all of the CGI scenes look incredibly realistic would have been prohibitively expensive, so instead they decided to give all of the effects a slapdash look. It's a stylistic choice. And it's all consistent. Makes sense to me!
Why am I making excuses for a movie that I haven't seen and suspect that I would mostly dislike, at best? I dunno.
Man, I loved Fringe so much, but I had completely forgotten that they used that detail. Surely it was just a one-line comment, yeah?
A quick throw-away moment did become quickly embedded in my mind: the play "Dogs" seems to have been running for many years in that alternate version of NYC ("Manhatan").
They did, Johnny Socko? I remember THE WEST WING was still on television, and of course it had zeppelins and Leonard Nimoy because that's how you know it's science-fiction, but I didn't remember the alt BACK TO THE FUTURE.
When Olivia gets stuck in the alt timeline, she enters Fauxlivia's apartment and we see a BTTF poster (among other things). I don't even think it was commented on, or at least nothing more than a telling look by Olivia.
I feel like the Eric Stoltz detail had just been revealed to wider public at about that time, maybe in the DVD extras of an anniversary version of BTTF? In any case, it's just the perfect gag to drop in the middle of your multiverse story. The "could have been" version of an iconic movie, one that involves time travel? PERFECT.
Remember, folks! David Zaslav threw $90M worth of BATGIRL into the trash for a tax writeoff, yet clung to this like Rose held onto The Amazing Floating Door, or Doorframe, or Top of a Door, in TITANIC. I was down on him for that initial action, which showed him to be both racist AND misogynistic (as is typical for Warner suits)—but this shows us he's also blitheringly incompetent when it comes to anything that isn't cheap, sleazy, and exploitative, or that might require paying writers a living wage.
The only person I feel bad for in all this is James Gunn, because now the pressure's on him more than ever to deliver Billion Dollar Babies right out the gate. While I'm happy he did so well with GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, and PEACEMAKER turned out to be better than it had any right to be? I don't think he's got any runway, thanks to Zaslav's repeated Penny Wise, Pound Foolish bungling of Warner's assets....
How the hell is that asshole in charge of this AND CNN AND (HBO) Max? I guess the silver lining is that after the Chris Licht fiasco, he hopefully might have a short enough leash with whichever Board supervises him that he might get canned with another flop or two on the movie front (I am, ah, not optimistic about Blue Beetle).
Though for what it's worth, Flash seems to be doing fairly well box office-wise, it's "Certified Fresh" on RT (if only barely) with high audience scores, and most importantly, the guy who took my Raising Cane's order the other day called it "okay" and "way better than Black Adam" - from his lips to Zaslav's ears. Whatever it is this movie's putting down, a shocking-to-me number of people are picking up.
Not all that well, Hobbit Enthusiast—despite both positive reviews and word-of-mouth from those who saw it, THE FLASH only did US$55.1M its opening weekend, though there are hopes the Juneteenth holiday will help Warners garner at least another $10-$12M:
But this is the type of film that only fans will see. I wrote this somewhere else but I feel like it needs to be asked: Who is the movie for?
People interested in the "Flashpoint" story – it's told on both TV and an animated film in the last 10 years, as well as touched on in the TV cartoon universe.
Fans of the DCU – It's been killed off and everything this film was proportued to do to the timeline is useless.
Fanso Miller – are there any?
People who want to see the Flash character – just completed a 10 year TV show, been featured in animated series and movies, and the live action movie version was mostly what passed for comic relief in Justice League, a film rejected by audiences
Keaton Batman fans– continuation of that character’s world written off for tax purposes. Also (spoiler) he dies.
Fans of Batman – feels like there are more versions of him than Spidermen in the Spiderverse, and its all confusing.
Reviews – middling at best.
So please explain, WB, who is this movie for at this point?
Haha ouch! Well I stand corrected. I saw it did almost as well as Transformers and thought that must be solid...
Though here's where I think I'm missing something: it says "Fast X [is] likely to post losses between $100-175 million for the studios". Boxofficemojo says Fast X has taken in $677 million so far. If they're really losing $100 million on that kind of revenue, every executive in that studio ought to be pilloried on the national mall.
Ah, the joys of Hollywood accounting, where a movie that makes 2/3 of a Billion dollars can be considered a "flop"! Its reported budget was US$340M which, even if they'd legitimately gone into space this time, is ridiculously expensive.
I suspect that Justin Lin, who walked citing "creative differences", still got paid his entire Director salary on top of them having to hire Louis Leterrier to replace him. Lynn is also listed as a producer, as well as Vin Diesel, so the pie has to be split to cover them as well as every other Producer, Exexutive Producer, etc.
The cameo appearances seem like a fun idea to me. Others don't find it fun? I get it. But at least it's not "creepy". Because yes, I often enjoy seeing CGI versions of dead actors appearing, but that's not something I would defend at all. Don't tell me what my brain is allowed to find entertaining! But also: I totally get why others have ISSUES with the whole concept. With the issues surrounding whether or not those actors would have given permission to use their image. Or are the current rights holders [surviving relatives?] just over-eager for a quick buck? But I often find the whole effect to be mesmerizing.
If these same kinds of tricks appeared in a comic book, I imagine it would be a lot less special. Although I have a vague memory of a 1960s era Batman appearing in a more modern comic book story, and it did indeed make me smile to see Adam West appear again through the magic of multiverse madness.
Are these tricks not satisfying for others? Do many find the cameos to be silly and pointless, and the CGI efforts infuriating and disrespectful? I get it!
It's hard for me to judge how I would feel about this film. It seems clear I wouldn't love it. But I'm still curious to watch Michael Keaton at work. And the "other stuff"? Well, either way, I wasn't going to see this right away, and eventually it all would have been "spoiled" for me, but I imagine I would have been delighted by all of it. Would my enjoyment have been enough to overcome an otherwise "meh" movie? Surely not.
Completely agree Nathan. This movie was a goddamn mess. Sometimes amusing, often distracting, never as funny as it thinks it is. Affleck and Keaton were good, though. That CGI truly was some Lawnmower Man quality stuff. Wow. Truly, wow.
One would think after horrifying Uncanny Zombie Harold Ramis in Ghostbusters, filmmakers world over would have learned lesson.
I know I'm not the only person on Earth who actually liked GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE, and thought the movie used The Ghost of Harold Ramis with surprising sensitivity—but it sure feels that way.
It's surprising how watching a film without the heightened expectations that come along with the first viewing can make it a much more enjoyable experience. I actually had a good time re-watching Afterlife yesterday with my son and still got teary-eyed at the end.
I both agree and disagree. I think there's something odd about resurrecting dead actors, but when it's done out of reverence, I personally find it powerful. I didn't think much of Ghostbusters Afterlife as a movie overall, but when Egon showed up and helped save the day with his old teammates/make family amends, then the scene ends with a dedication to him, it was touching.
And now for a little irony - my 8 year-old selected a movie to watch with me for Father's Day, so I just finished watching Ghostbusters Afterlife. So now my son is a living version of that targeted advertising that pops up in your Facebook feed.
Oh well, Happy Father's Day everybody!
Dear Gawd, what can be done about CGI “actors”? Especially this grave-robbing custom of digitally resurrecting dead actors for the sake of. . . What, exactly? Continuity? Nostalgia? I say ban the whole thing or pay the estate as much money as you would have given a living actor for the role.
Hear, hear. When Deepfake Leia showed up in Rogue One it just took me completely out of the movie (which I otherwise loved, on the balance) -- all I was thinking about was if that was some uncannily good look-alike actress, or unused footage they'd spliced in, or what -- didn't figure it out until the credits rolled. I didn't feel EMOTIONAL or NOSTALGIC or anything, just... confused.
Comparatively, I DID get teary-eyed when Real Leia in The Last Jedi said "I'll always be with you" because that actually was Carrie Fisher and I knew that would be the last time we saw her (scrap footage weirdly spliced into Rise of Skywalker notwithstanding, I guess). Because she's a real person, and that's part of the deal. I don't want some cartoon version, no matter how "realistic", I want a person I can connect with - that's the whole point of performance! Hollywood is just hell bent on making these CGI "actors" a thing, presumably for cost/anti-labor reasons, but that's like a restaurant trying to sell you a picture of a steak on a plate. I just hope to god enough of the audience agrees that this never actually catches on.
My comment is not specifically about CGI "Actors", but wow was it shocking how bad the CGI was in this movie, especially after reading about the 30th anniversary of Jurassic Park over the last two weeks. It was awful CGI. The babies, the effing babies.
"How can audiences root for a thespian cast as a superhero when he’s known as a real life supervillain in the making?"
Not to be rude, but Ezra goes by they/them pronouns.
Yes– because that's not what's at issue here.
I get it - Miller deserves every Grant Gustin is "Better Than Ezra" joke and then some, but when I heard close to 2 years ago that Michael Keaton was returning as Batman for this, I didn't even care who played Flash. I am not going to see this movie because of Ezra Miller, I purely want to see Michael Keaton back. Everything else is just filler.
To make all of the CGI scenes look incredibly realistic would have been prohibitively expensive, so instead they decided to give all of the effects a slapdash look. It's a stylistic choice. And it's all consistent. Makes sense to me!
Why am I making excuses for a movie that I haven't seen and suspect that I would mostly dislike, at best? I dunno.
The alt-timeline "Back to the Future starring Eric Stoltz" gag had already been done, in the outstanding TV show Fringe.
Man, I loved Fringe so much, but I had completely forgotten that they used that detail. Surely it was just a one-line comment, yeah?
A quick throw-away moment did become quickly embedded in my mind: the play "Dogs" seems to have been running for many years in that alternate version of NYC ("Manhatan").
They did, Johnny Socko? I remember THE WEST WING was still on television, and of course it had zeppelins and Leonard Nimoy because that's how you know it's science-fiction, but I didn't remember the alt BACK TO THE FUTURE.
When Olivia gets stuck in the alt timeline, she enters Fauxlivia's apartment and we see a BTTF poster (among other things). I don't even think it was commented on, or at least nothing more than a telling look by Olivia.
I feel like the Eric Stoltz detail had just been revealed to wider public at about that time, maybe in the DVD extras of an anniversary version of BTTF? In any case, it's just the perfect gag to drop in the middle of your multiverse story. The "could have been" version of an iconic movie, one that involves time travel? PERFECT.
Who plays Ming in this?
Funny!
Remember, folks! David Zaslav threw $90M worth of BATGIRL into the trash for a tax writeoff, yet clung to this like Rose held onto The Amazing Floating Door, or Doorframe, or Top of a Door, in TITANIC. I was down on him for that initial action, which showed him to be both racist AND misogynistic (as is typical for Warner suits)—but this shows us he's also blitheringly incompetent when it comes to anything that isn't cheap, sleazy, and exploitative, or that might require paying writers a living wage.
The only person I feel bad for in all this is James Gunn, because now the pressure's on him more than ever to deliver Billion Dollar Babies right out the gate. While I'm happy he did so well with GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, and PEACEMAKER turned out to be better than it had any right to be? I don't think he's got any runway, thanks to Zaslav's repeated Penny Wise, Pound Foolish bungling of Warner's assets....
How the hell is that asshole in charge of this AND CNN AND (HBO) Max? I guess the silver lining is that after the Chris Licht fiasco, he hopefully might have a short enough leash with whichever Board supervises him that he might get canned with another flop or two on the movie front (I am, ah, not optimistic about Blue Beetle).
Though for what it's worth, Flash seems to be doing fairly well box office-wise, it's "Certified Fresh" on RT (if only barely) with high audience scores, and most importantly, the guy who took my Raising Cane's order the other day called it "okay" and "way better than Black Adam" - from his lips to Zaslav's ears. Whatever it is this movie's putting down, a shocking-to-me number of people are picking up.
Not all that well, Hobbit Enthusiast—despite both positive reviews and word-of-mouth from those who saw it, THE FLASH only did US$55.1M its opening weekend, though there are hopes the Juneteenth holiday will help Warners garner at least another $10-$12M:
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/weekend-box-office-results-the-flash-and-elemental-secure-disappointing-debuts/
That's about US$12M less than BLACK ADAM, among the most disappointing openings of any DCEU movie ever.
But this is the type of film that only fans will see. I wrote this somewhere else but I feel like it needs to be asked: Who is the movie for?
People interested in the "Flashpoint" story – it's told on both TV and an animated film in the last 10 years, as well as touched on in the TV cartoon universe.
Fans of the DCU – It's been killed off and everything this film was proportued to do to the timeline is useless.
Fanso Miller – are there any?
People who want to see the Flash character – just completed a 10 year TV show, been featured in animated series and movies, and the live action movie version was mostly what passed for comic relief in Justice League, a film rejected by audiences
Keaton Batman fans– continuation of that character’s world written off for tax purposes. Also (spoiler) he dies.
Fans of Batman – feels like there are more versions of him than Spidermen in the Spiderverse, and its all confusing.
Reviews – middling at best.
So please explain, WB, who is this movie for at this point?
It's for resetting the DCEU so James Gunn can start with a clean slate.
That's the only reason for insisting on theatrically releasing THE FLASH that I can think of—well, that and satisfying Michael Keaton as Batman fans.
Haha ouch! Well I stand corrected. I saw it did almost as well as Transformers and thought that must be solid...
Though here's where I think I'm missing something: it says "Fast X [is] likely to post losses between $100-175 million for the studios". Boxofficemojo says Fast X has taken in $677 million so far. If they're really losing $100 million on that kind of revenue, every executive in that studio ought to be pilloried on the national mall.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/2023/?ref_=bo_lnav_hm_shrt
Ah, the joys of Hollywood accounting, where a movie that makes 2/3 of a Billion dollars can be considered a "flop"! Its reported budget was US$340M which, even if they'd legitimately gone into space this time, is ridiculously expensive.
I suspect that Justin Lin, who walked citing "creative differences", still got paid his entire Director salary on top of them having to hire Louis Leterrier to replace him. Lynn is also listed as a producer, as well as Vin Diesel, so the pie has to be split to cover them as well as every other Producer, Exexutive Producer, etc.
The cameo appearances seem like a fun idea to me. Others don't find it fun? I get it. But at least it's not "creepy". Because yes, I often enjoy seeing CGI versions of dead actors appearing, but that's not something I would defend at all. Don't tell me what my brain is allowed to find entertaining! But also: I totally get why others have ISSUES with the whole concept. With the issues surrounding whether or not those actors would have given permission to use their image. Or are the current rights holders [surviving relatives?] just over-eager for a quick buck? But I often find the whole effect to be mesmerizing.
If these same kinds of tricks appeared in a comic book, I imagine it would be a lot less special. Although I have a vague memory of a 1960s era Batman appearing in a more modern comic book story, and it did indeed make me smile to see Adam West appear again through the magic of multiverse madness.
Are these tricks not satisfying for others? Do many find the cameos to be silly and pointless, and the CGI efforts infuriating and disrespectful? I get it!
It's hard for me to judge how I would feel about this film. It seems clear I wouldn't love it. But I'm still curious to watch Michael Keaton at work. And the "other stuff"? Well, either way, I wasn't going to see this right away, and eventually it all would have been "spoiled" for me, but I imagine I would have been delighted by all of it. Would my enjoyment have been enough to overcome an otherwise "meh" movie? Surely not.
Completely agree Nathan. This movie was a goddamn mess. Sometimes amusing, often distracting, never as funny as it thinks it is. Affleck and Keaton were good, though. That CGI truly was some Lawnmower Man quality stuff. Wow. Truly, wow.