pizzarat wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:33 pmApparently Egon's secret floor panel showed up in one of the NOW Comic books.
A secret floor safe did indeed appear in the very first issue, though it's most likely a coincidence.
pizzarat wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:33 pmThe Cannibal Girls marquee is definitely a nod to GBII
-More likely a nod from Jason to his Dad's work.
Whilst the movies have taken some very light inspiration from the cartoons, they've largely remained their own entity, and I imagine the same will be true with Afterlife. There may be the occasional thing that can be argued as being inspired by The Real Ghostbusters (such as the gunner chair), but I wouldn't be expecting Jason to be lifting specific facts from the cartoon to become movie canon.
I would say that if it does turn out to be true that Egon had a relationship with Janine that that would be the thing most lifted from the show. Apparently, Harold Ramis was so against the relationship in part 2 that he made her have that fling with Lewis because he just didn't view Egon as a romantic character.
The only romance I'm seeing probably happening are between Finn and the girl he hangs out with over the well. Possibly the mother and Rudd. Remember this is Ghostbusters JR. The sequels, not grumpy old men part nine. Although Winston can get away with hitting on younger women, Bill will just get slapped.
Alphagaia wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 11:57 pm It's why they broke up Peter and Dana for two as well, and why many couples break up in a sequel.
A romance in these kind of movies is just not interesting to write and considered as a price to get at the end for the characters.
Mickey and Minnie have never married and that is a conscious effort on Disney's part because they say it adds a "thrill of the chase" element by keeping them as just dating instead of being together. Friends did the same thing with Ross and Rachel for the vast majority of the show with the "will they/won't they" element. Also The Office had Jim chase Pam for quite a while and once they finally did get together you could tell the writers had a much harder time framing stories for them that could still keep the conflict to a bare minimum. So I can see why writers would have this logic.
Alphagaia wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 11:57 pm It's why they broke up Peter and Dana for two as well, and why many couples break up in a sequel.
A romance in these kind of movies is just not interesting to write and considered as a price to get at the end for the characters.
Mickey and Minnie have never married and that is a conscious effort on Disney's part because they say it adds a "thrill of the chase" element by keeping them as just dating instead of being together. Friends did the same thing with Ross and Rachel for the vast majority of the show with the "will they/won't they" element. Also The Office had Jim chase Pam for quite a while and once they finally did get together you could tell the writers had a much harder time framing stories for them that could still keep the conflict to a bare minimum. So I can see why writers would have this logic.
It’s easy to maintain interest in a couple that have reunited! Just have one of them on a plane low on fuel unable to land, and the other in an airport full of terrorist, um... ghosts? It’s cinema 101!
Alphagaia wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 11:57 pm It's why they broke up Peter and Dana for two as well, and why many couples break up in a sequel.
A romance in these kind of movies is just not interesting to write and considered as a price to get at the end for the characters.
Mickey and Minnie have never married and that is a conscious effort on Disney's part because they say it adds a "thrill of the chase" element by keeping them as just dating instead of being together. Friends did the same thing with Ross and Rachel for the vast majority of the show with the "will they/won't they" element. Also The Office had Jim chase Pam for quite a while and once they finally did get together you could tell the writers had a much harder time framing stories for them that could still keep the conflict to a bare minimum. So I can see why writers would have this logic.
Yeah but thats just on screen. Off screen Mickey and Minnie have been married since 1933.
Mickey and Minnie have never married and that is a conscious effort on Disney's part because they say it adds a "thrill of the chase" element by keeping them as just dating instead of being together. Friends did the same thing with Ross and Rachel for the vast majority of the show with the "will they/won't they" element. Also The Office had Jim chase Pam for quite a while and once they finally did get together you could tell the writers had a much harder time framing stories for them that could still keep the conflict to a bare minimum. So I can see why writers would have this logic.
Yeah but thats just on screen. Off screen Mickey and Minnie have been married since 1933.
Yeah and that's weird that Walt thought of it that way. Although I can understand a creator having a totally different take on things because I am an absolutely rabid Carl Barks fan and Scrooge McDuck is my all time favorite character and all but Don Rosa's Uncle Scrooge takes are VASSSSTLY different than what Barks done with all the Duck family but in my mind the only Uncle Scrooge that's truly canon is what Barks done and then what Rosa built off that. The rest of it is just fan fiction on its best day. Although, oddly enough, there are elements of The Real Ghostbusters that I think of as canon as long as they don't detract from the original lore of the films.
Hell no. I'm positive the movie will end with the remaining GB alive and well, giving the new crew tips and tricks. I think the GB split up after Egons death, and at the end of the movie they will share some Chinese together and remembering the good old times.
deadderek wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 11:46 am SO let's go here:
Anyone think they'll be killing off the original team?
I really hope not, because the reunion that occurs after Egon's death will have been short-lived and joyless. Provided this movie turns out to be very successful (I have a good feeling it will be to OG fans and new fans, alike), there's no reason the OGB couldn't show up (most notably Ray) in a future sequel.
Doubt any of those cast members are dying, but I do think whatever happens will be designed so that not all of them have to come back if this leads to anything else.
People really want the cartoons to be part of the canon, but since they wrote the first movie into the cartoon canon it feels like the cartoon itself established a separation. In any case, as I've said before, unless the creatives (Jason and Gil) have watched as much of it as us, or played it (The Video Game), I would say don't expect it. It's not like a lore guy from Ghost Corps comes in and writes with them, and of course they're thinking of the emotional beats and character arcs of the story they want to tell rather than checklisting references.
janeb984 wrote:Anyone notice how the GB afterlife plot shares a lot of similarities to the Onward movie Disney and Pixar are doing?
Not Really. Onward is more of a roadtrip film. Other than the characters finding out secrets from a loved one that is no longer alive, I don't see too many similarities.
