Topic: Ghostbusters - Frozen Empire

[Schmidt]

So I think the film looks alright, but I hope they remember that Ghostbusters was, first and foremost, a comedy. From the trailer (which may not be representative of the film) this looks like it's taking itself way too seriously.

Nostalgia is everything now though, so not surprised we're getting a film that treats Ghostbusters not for what it actually was - a really funny film that didn't take itself seriously at all - but instead looks at it as this beloved thing that has to be honoured.

The one from a few years ago was obviously awful, but I reckon they at least had the right idea of just doing a straight comedy without feeling the need to pay homage to the original at every turn, bar a few cameos.

I think it's fine if it's a different genre to the originals, as long as it's a well made movie. The 2016 one just seemed like a bunch of people fucking around not caring for a few months and then getting mad when people didn't adore what was left at the end.

[Dench57]

So I think the film looks alright, but I hope they remember that Ghostbusters was, first and foremost, a comedy. From the trailer (which may not be representative of the film) this looks like it's taking itself way too seriously.

Nostalgia is everything now though, so not surprised we're getting a film that treats Ghostbusters not for what it actually was - a really funny film that didn't take itself seriously at all - but instead looks at it as this beloved thing that has to be honoured.

The one from a few years ago was obviously awful, but I reckon they at least had the right idea of just doing a straight comedy without feeling the need to pay homage to the original at every turn, bar a few cameos.

yeah i agree. looks fine for what it is but i hope they have some fun with it. the trailer looks like a sequel to a film that never actually existed. the earnest, reverential, cod-Spielbergian tone the publicity for this film conveys doesn't really feel like Ghostbusters, to me at least. I guess everyone shitting their pants at the last one (comedy) has convinced them they need to treat the hallowed greatest franchise of all time The Ghost Busters with more reverence. anyway, maybe this is just the "mood" trailer and there'll be some jokes in the next one.

[BER]

Got more of a Power Rangers vibe from that trailer.

[wampa1]

Dunno yet. The premise going purely from what I gather from the trailer appears to be Egon moved to the middle of nowhere presumably to research some weird stuff then setup loads of puzzles so that someone else could find all the gear and finish what he started. Not really on board with that, to be honest. It all seems a bit contrived and overly-reliant on the audience finding meaning in all the things they recognise as opposed to creating anything meaningful of its own.  Might be good but I doubt it will be great.

[Hedley Lamarr]

I think there's enough in that trailer to make it worthwhile going with my kids, that's before you get to Carrie Coon.  It seems like fun and it doesn't erase the first two. I'm in.

[Red Beret]

So I think the film looks alright, but I hope they remember that Ghostbusters was, first and foremost, a comedy. From the trailer (which may not be representative of the film) this looks like it's taking itself way too seriously.

Nostalgia is everything now though, so not surprised we're getting a film that treats Ghostbusters not for what it actually was - a really funny film that didn't take itself seriously at all - but instead looks at it as this beloved thing that has to be honoured.

The one from a few years ago was obviously awful, but I reckon they at least had the right idea of just doing a straight comedy without feeling the need to pay homage to the original at every turn, bar a few cameos.

I think it's fine if it's a different genre to the originals, as long as it's a well made movie. The 2016 one just seemed like a bunch of people fucking around not caring for a few months and then getting mad when people didn't adore what was left at the end.

Yeah.  It's really important to remember that you couldn't make a film like Ghostbusters now, not for kids anyway. Think about the stuff that's in it - as the Honest Trailer touched on, high levels of swearing, casual smoking, the scene where Raymond/Aykroyd gets ghost head - none of that would get to a PG audience now.

It's not the 80s anymore and the audience has moved on.  I'm glad to live in a world where films like the original Ghostbusters or Airplane! exist, but they could never be made now. Studios wouldn't take that kind of a risk.

[Macphisto80]

You certainly couldn't make a Ghostbusters film these days with a character like Peter Venkman in it. Watching the film (the original) in the modern day makes Venkman look like a creepy sex pest.

[PaulF]

You certainly couldn't make a Ghostbusters film these days with a character like Peter Venkman in it. Watching the film (the original) in the modern day makes Venkman look like a creepy sex pest.

[Livbes]

That review, he sounds a bit of tit to me. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/oct/11/ghostbusters-afterlife-jason-reitman-paul-rudd-review?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Sheer Magnetism]

Doesn't sound great, but it was always going to get pelted by the critics for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the movie:

Consider the casual cowardice of a script that uses its own mythology to subtly erase 2016’s all-gals reboot from the canon, giving the rage-choked trolls carpet-bombing IMDb with zero-star ratings the vindication they’ve always craved.

[Macphisto80]

They just still can't accept that the 2016 version was an absolute disaster and a massive stinking turd in more ways than one, can they?

I've had a squint at the current set of reviews on RT, and they are generally favourable.

[Schmidt]

They just still can't accept that the 2016 version was an absolute disaster and a massive stinking turd in more ways than one, can they?

I've had a squint at the current set of reviews on RT, and they are generally favourable.

I always assumed the favourable reviews were due to Melissa McCarthy getting out ahead of it and saying anyone who dislikes the movie is sexist, I'm surprised to see a reviewer still sticking to their guns on that.

I don't get how people can genuinely think the dislike of that movie is due to sexism though, Mad Max: Fury Road came out the year before and was much better rage-bait, yet it was a huge success.

[wampa1]

In isolation, the 2016 film is fine. Nothing special but nowhere near the trainwreck people make it out it to be.

This new one will be equally 'alright' but that Guardian review all but confirms some absolute yikes moments that I knew would be there because filmmakers can't help themselves and have zero restraint these days.

[Macphisto80]

I always assumed the favourable reviews were due to Melissa McCarthy getting out ahead of it and saying anyone who dislikes the movie is sexist, I'm surprised to see a reviewer still sticking to their guns on that.

I don't get how people can genuinely think the dislike of that movie is due to sexism though, Mad Max: Fury Road came out the year before and was much better rage-bait, yet it was a huge success.

There's been a few all female cast films in recent years. Non of which raised an eyebrow when it came to the "misogynist sexist" crowd of complaint. The stand out being Annihilation. Ghostbusters 2016 was just liquid dogshit, and its director and cast thought it was a great idea to include scenes and characters that mocked the fandom of the original film. How'd that work out? I get the impression that the Guardian reviewer still has that chip on his shoulder. Review the film based on the merit of the film, and leave your shit identity politics at the fucking door. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

[Red Beret]

Final trailer just came out.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/Y7DWbcxDamc" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/Y7DWbcxDamc</a>

I once read a critic describe the first two films as having the exact same plot. Having not watched the girl power version I can't comment on that, but from this trailer I'm guessing it will be quite similar to the first two. I don't mind if they want to play it safe though as it looks pretty good to me.

[TepidT2O]

This is a great review for it

Ghostbusters: Afterlife is one of the best sequels in recent memory.

https://nerdist.com/article/ghostbusters-afterlife-review-jason-reitman/

[Agent99]

This is a great review for it

Ghostbusters: Afterlife is one of the best sequels in recent memory.

https://nerdist.com/article/ghostbusters-afterlife-review-jason-reitman/

Hmm, that seems suspiciously like the reviews for the 2016 version.

[decosabute]

Saw this today and I'm absolutely baffled by the critical response. I should point out I'm a huge fan of the original film, but really thought this one was very entertaining. It's not perfect by any stretch, but it's fun, well-crafted and very warm-hearted.

However, a huge number of critics have absolutely savaged it, and I can't help feeling that this is at least to some extent a response to what they perceive as misogyny amongst Ghostbusters fans after they totally rejected the 2016 all-female film. Most negative reviews I've read (or listened to - Kermode) have focused heavily on what happened with the 2016 film, showing that it's at least a factor in their thinking. The troll/misogyny angle doesn't really hold up though, when you consider that this film is equally female-led (the brilliant McKenna Grace absolutely steals the show) and audiences and fans seem to be strongly embracing it and treating it as worthy successesor.

Any thoughts on this?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It's been discussed in the Film Thread

I loved it. Thought it was great.

[Macphisto80]

They shouldn't have bothered.

[BER]

Memberberries

[decosabute]

They shouldn't have bothered.

Memberberries

Genuinely wondering did yous actually watch it?

[decosabute]

It's been discussed in the Film Thread

I loved it. Thought it was great.

Ah ok - I don't normally use this part of the forum and hadn't realised most films have a general discussion thread. Apologies and feel free to delete this mods.

But yes, I agree about the film.

[Red Beret]

Why are people talking about this film in two other threads when I made this two years ago?

[decosabute]

Why are people talking about this film in two other threads when I made this two years ago?

Sorry, didn't realise - will try to delete now.

[Red Beret]

Sorry, didn't realise - will try to delete now.

No worries mate.

[Schmidt]

Saw it today, thought it was a fantastic film, plenty of nostalgia but I don't see why there wouldn't be or why that's suddenly not allowed. Similar premise to the originals but more about the characters discovering this world of ghostbusting that was unknown to them, rather than blazing the trail.

Was expecting the Stranger Things kid to be really annoying but he was alright, and the little cameo at the end was as well done as it could be really, a bit cheesy but it would be hard not to be.

[El Lobo]

South Park has made smart arses think that everything is memberberries, or that memberberries are a bad thing

[voodoo ray]

I thought it was great. really enjoyed it.

it's fashionable these days to get all po-faced and sneer at "fan service" but I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong about making things that fans of something enjoy.

[Livbes]

I think it’s what I expected. I did enjoy it and I loved all the “fan service” is that not what we all wanted?

[decosabute]

Agree with all the last few posts. So many smartarse types are slating the film for 'fan service' (the film criticism equivalent of 'superclubs' or 'half spaces' as annoying and suddenly ubiquitous expressions) without even really knowing if or why that's a bad thing. To me, it hasn't really been judged on its own merits.

For example, Red Letter Media/Half in the Bag absolutely slaughtered it for some of the same reasons that they lauded Force Awakens in 2015, so there are definite double standards going on. I think after so many nostalgia driven reboots in recent years (and especially after how absolutely awful Rise of Skywalker was), certain people have decided this stuff is now not allowed and 'pulled up the drawbridge' on this type of film. I think Ghostbusters Afterlife has been a victim of this and been made an example of, despite it actually being a very decent film with plenty of heart.

[Red Beret]

I stopped paying attention to Red Letter Media when they slaughtered Rogue One.

[Schmidt]

I think after so many nostalgia driven reboots in recent years (and especially after how absolutely awful Rise of Skywalker was), certain people have decided this stuff is now not allowed and 'pulled up the drawbridge' on this type of film.

I think this is exactly it, the new Star Wars trilogy took fan service too far, and so people have now decided all fan service is bad.

[Livbes]

Only just heard about the 2 post credit scenes!!! Luckily I have it on the dodgy box so watched them last night. Both good I thought. Sigourney 

[[new username under construction]]

I stopped paying attention to Red Letter Media when they slaughtered Rogue One.

Rogue One isn't that good

Afterlife is just meh, it's like watching the original just nowhere near as good. Ghostbusters was great, I saw it originally when I was 10 and thought is was awesome, no kids needed in it. No need to make it a kids film, which it is now

[losCHUNK]

I thought it was great. really enjoyed it.

it's fashionable these days to get all po-faced and sneer at "fan service" but I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong about making things that fans of something enjoy.

It's the way you go about the fan service and in a lot of cases it gets in the way of the story the film is trying to tell and I do think it hindered this movie to a good degree,  There was atleast 2 moments in this film which annoyed me quite a bit because of it, the exposition dump was just unhinged.  The characters couldve done with a lot more work.

With that said I found it enjoyable and the 1st 2 acts was pretty well done.  I don't mind the change in tone, the move away from smart arse comedy to try and tell something a bit more serious.  And that ecto 1 scene was absolute quality.  It's a move in the right direction, but as a lot have said on here, they need to shake the shackles of the original to find its own legs imo, there was a lot of recycling.

[newterp]

In isolation, the 2016 film is fine. Nothing special but nowhere near the trainwreck people make it out it to be.

This new one will be equally 'alright' but that Guardian review all but confirms some absolute yikes moments that I knew would be there because filmmakers can't help themselves and have zero restraint these days.

In isolation, not many people would have paid money to see it.

It was abysmal. Matrix 4 tried to match it.

[Trada]

Just watched wasn't really looking forward to it but really enjoyed it forget the last film this is a proper follow up to the original films

[Macphisto80]

No one going to mention the state of the editing in this? OK.

[stoa]

Finally got to watch this on Amazon Video and have to say I liked it. I love the old films (not in a nerdy I know every little detail about them  kind of way) and I think this was a worthy successor. Do still think they shit the bed towards the end and there are a couple of other little nitpicks I have, but didn't regret watching it and buying it.