Comedy Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire

[DarkKnight88]

The question is where is Oscar?!?

I have to assume we’ll get some kind of reference. At least with a Sigourney Weaver cameo at some point.

 

[Drizzle]

I wouldn't hold my breath for Oscar if Sigourney Weaver isn't in this. IIRC it's been confirmed that he isn't Venkman's son. It would be cool to include him but he isn't really necessary especially with the cast already being stacked with Egon's family and their friends.

 

[Sithborg]

It would be nice to move away from the nostalgia bait, but clearly, we can't.

 

[Arnold Rimmer]

It would be nice to move away from the nostalgia bait, but clearly, we can't.

They're not nostalgia-baiting. They've made clear they're doing a brand-new story with an original villain. Slimer and Walter Peck probably aren't in it that much.

 

[Sithborg]

They're not nostalgia-baiting. They've made clear they're doing a brand-new story with an original villain. Slimer and Walter Peck probably aren't in it that much.

Really, then why did they release 2 trailers, one practically entirely focused on old ****?

 

[DyeLorean]

It would be nice to move away from the nostalgia bait, but clearly, we can't.

What qualifies as nostalgia bait and what as "well that's just a character from the previous movie"? I'm honestly asking where you draw the line. There's as much new stuff here as there are characters and objects that are just part of the world of these movies. I'd say GB: Afterlife was driven more on nostalgia than this one.

 

[SJD]

It would be nice to move away from the nostalgia bait, but clearly, we can't.

I suspect this trailer was meant to showcase some of the old stuff fans love while introducing to brand new elements. I'm guessing characters and things like Walter Peck, Slimer and the library ghost all have small roles in an over bigger story. From what we saw, there are lots to be excited about.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Looks great! Again, I enjoyed afterlife a lot and this looks like it's gonna be even more fun and crazy.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Trailer looks great! Bring on March at the movies!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That new trailer was really good. Hope this is as good a follow up to Afterlife as it looks!

 

[samsnee]

Really, then why did they release 2 trailers, one practically entirely focused on old ****?

Do you know how marketing works?

 

[BatLobster]

I didn't find it too nostalgia-baity really.

The context and tone of how old stuff is presented matters. With Afterlife, it was leaning more awe and wonder of viewing this universe through the lens of a kid. I think that's why the nostalgic take on it actually worked for that movie, but I can understand why it rubbed some the wrong way.

This on the other hand just looks like a really fun, modern adventure that takes place in the Ghostbusters universe we know and love. Basically it comes off as familiar in a fun way, not trying to make you emotional via member-berries way. But looks to have the right balance of new stuff that I think should make for a satisfying experience.

 

[henzINNIT]

My tolerance of member-berries in this series is tested by two things:

1.) The sentimentality involved. The kids dusting off old props allowed for a certain amount of whimsy, but Afterlife became poisonous by the end to me. It should be aiming to be funny, not to make middle-aged men cry.

2.) The writers inability to make these love-letter films without constantly treading over the video game. I know it's probably 'secondary canon' to the higher ups, but it was great and featured the last contributions from Harold Ramis.

1 is a matter of tone so we'll see. The new trailer is pretty fun. I'm hoping for the best and I like the cast. The film is already failing on 2, with the library ghost returning again, and Winston not having his doctorate according to some promo stuff.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I didn't find it too nostalgia-baity really.

The context and tone of how old stuff is presented matters. With Afterlife, it was leaning more awe and wonder of viewing this universe through the lens of a kid. I think that's why the nostalgic take on it actually worked for that movie, but I can understand why it rubbed some the wrong way.

This on the other hand just looks like a really fun, modern adventure that takes place in the Ghostbusters universe we know and love. Basically it comes off as familiar in a fun way, not trying to make you emotional via member-berries way. But looks to have the right balance of new stuff that I think should make for a satisfying experience.

See, for me that came off as faintly insane. That first trailer, to this day, makes me laugh - it plays like an SNL sketch parodying ultra sincere The Force Awakens style legacy sequels. The movie itself wound up being just as insufferably worshipful of something so flippant and irreverent. Ghostbusters 2016 is wildly hit or miss (mostly miss, still a vastly more enjoyable watch than Afterlife), but I genuinely think that style of movie was way more befitting the property than this. Afterlife isn't a movie with any real relationship with what Ghostbusters actually was as a movie. It is a movie about people's childhood memories of how Ghostbusters felt to them, executed in the most treacly manner possible.

Maybe it's because I have zero familiarity with the animated shows that this stuff seems to be drawing on for why I find it so absurd, since that seems to be a huge inspiration for them. If they were gonna do that I'd rather it just be a straight up reboot because expecting me to have my heart swell at the sight of a completely disinterested Bill Murray feels like the height of everything wrong with modern movies.

 

[DyeLorean]

I think Harold Ramis' passing was the catalyst for the tone of Afterlife. I totally understand why some people didn't like it, but for me it felt more honest than the reboot, it was made with care and love for the original movies and the people involved. It wasn't trying to be Ghostbusters III.

Frozen Empire, on the other hand, is much more ambitious. Trying to combine the original movies, Afterlife and the animated series. We'll see how it does but if it works is gonna be a blast. The brand was in serious trouble after 25 years and a failed reboot. All things considered, I think they did pretty good.

 

[SJD]

I think Harold Ramis' passing was the catalyst for the tone of Afterlife. I totally understand why some people didn't like it, but for me it felt more honest than the reboot, it was made with care and love for the original movies and the people involved. It wasn't trying to be Ghostbusters III.

Frozen Empire, on the other hand, is much more ambitious. Trying to combine the original movies, Afterlife and the animated series. We'll see how it does but if it works is gonna be a blast. The brand was in serious trouble after 25 years and a failed reboot. All things considered, I think they did pretty good.

I agree with all of this.

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is starting to feel like the third installment many fans have wanted for years now. I hope it all comes together nicely. Fingers crossed.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Agreed about Harold Ramis’ passing. Also Afterlife feels different because Jason Reitman is a different kind of filmmaker. And it was a love letter to his father Ivan Reitman. And it plays very sincere because of that, because he literally grew up on the sets of the first two movies.

The fact now that it was also Ivan Reitman’s final involvement in the series also gives it a special kind of rewatch.

I think Gil Kennan, as mixed as he is as a filmmaker, seemingly is bridging that emotion with the new generation with the wackiness of the original movie.

 

[BatLobster]

See, for me that came off as faintly insane. That first trailer, to this day, makes me laugh - it plays like an SNL sketch parodying ultra sincere The Force Awakens style legacy sequels. The movie itself wound up being just as insufferably worshipful of something so flippant and irreverent. Ghostbusters 2016 is wildly hit or miss (mostly miss, still a vastly more enjoyable watch than Afterlife), but I genuinely think that style of movie was way more befitting the property than this. Afterlife isn't a movie with any real relationship with what Ghostbusters actually was as a movie. It is a movie about people's childhood memories of how Ghostbusters felt to them, executed in the most treacly manner possible.

Well, I mean I can't argue against you feeling that way and you're entitled to that. But I think it's fair to point out that the movie was largely embraced. Not just old diehard Ghostbusters fans either. Families, kids, etc. It worked for a lot people. My 11 year old niece loved it, and she loves the originals too. I think that's what some people might miss. If you're of a certain generation, Ghostbusters is something that is passed down from parents to kids just like Star Wars. So it's not just nostalgia, it's a thing of...kids today still like the original Ghostbusters. That's why I think shifting into Goonies/Stranger sort of territory was kind of a stroke of brilliance from Jason Reitman as a way to bring the series back for fans old and new alike.

Now, do I think it played things a little too safe? Yeah, it did. We really didn't need to do Gozer again. But other than that, I really thought the tone of the film was spot on. Even with the more sentimental/dramedy element that Jason Reitman brought ot it, its style of humor/jokes felt a LOT closer in spirit to the originals than 2016. For me, the idea of leaning into a different tone/setting/point of view was a feature of the movie, not a bug. And yes, as someone who was wearing proton packs and jumpsuits as a 4 year old kid and grew up wearing out the VHS tapes of the first two movies, Ghostbusters as a concept will always be a lot more than just a silly irreverent Bill Murray vehicle to me. And it's not just fans who grew up with it who feel that way-- look at how seriously Dan Aykroyd takes it. I think that's a big part of the secret sauce. There's a level of verisimilitude to the original Ghostbusters-- it's very wacky concept, but it somehow feels grounded and the humor is all very character-driven.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Well, I mean I can't argue against you feeling that way and you're entitled to that. But I think it's fair to point out that the movie was largely embraced. Not just old diehard Ghostbusters fans either. Families, kids, etc. It worked for a lot people. My 11 year old niece loved it, and she loves the originals too. I think that's what some people might miss. If you're of a certain generation, Ghostbusters is something that is passed down from parents to kids just like Star Wars. So it's not just nostalgia, it's a thing of...kids today still like the original Ghostbusters. That's why I think shifting into Goonies/Stranger sort of territory was kind of a stroke of brilliance from Jason Reitman as a way to bring the series back for fans old and new alike.

Now, do I think it played things a little too safe? Yeah, it did. We really didn't need to do Gozer again. But other than that, I really thought the tone of the film was spot on. Even with the more sentimental/dramedy element that Jason Reitman brought ot it, its style of humor/jokes felt a LOT closer in spirit to the originals than 2016. For me, the idea of leaning into a different tone/setting/point of view was a feature of the movie, not a bug. And yes, as someone who was wearing proton packs and jumpsuits as a 4 year old kid and grew up wearing out the VHS tapes of the first two movies, Ghostbusters as a concept will always be a lot more than just a silly irreverent Bill Murray vehicle to me. And it's not just fans who grew up with it who feel that way-- look at how seriously Dan Aykroyd takes it. I think that's a big part of the secret sauce. There's a level of verisimilitude to the original Ghostbusters-- it's very wacky concept, but it somehow feels grounded and the humor is all very character-driven.

Ultimately, I just don't have any stomach for Gen X nostalgia. It feels like an incredibly depressing strangehold on media. These old properties being worshipped by filmmakers and studios as fetish objects, the memory of childhood viewings given priority over what the movies actually are and what they are about. There's a lot of fun, clever stuff in Ghostbusters - it's a total Reagan era satire about small business, New York, academia etc and a modernization of that could potentially be funny and clever. These movies were about things, things that are way more interesting than the cloying fan culture that surrounds them.

Aykroyd is great, I would lowkey love him to get to make the completely insane version of Ghostbusters he originally wanted to make. Wonderful, deeply weird man.

 

[Drizzle]

Ultimately, I just don't have any stomach for Gen X nostalgia. It feels like an incredibly depressing strangehold on media. These old properties being worshipped by filmmakers and studios as fetish objects, the memory of childhood viewings given priority over what the movies actually are and what they are about. There's a lot of fun, clever stuff in Ghostbusters - it's a total Reagan era satire about small business, New York, academia etc and a modernization of that could potentially be funny and clever. These movies were about things, things that are way more interesting than the cloying fan culture that surrounds them.

Aykroyd is great, I would lowkey love him to get to make the completely insane version of Ghostbusters he originally wanted to make. Wonderful, deeply weird man.

There's no greater proof of this than Coneheads. Both the sketch and the movie.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

There's no greater proof of this than Coneheads. Both the sketch and the movie.

Aykroyd is such an amazing dude that I listened to a multi hour long Joe Rogan interview for his sake. An experience that, normally, would put me in an emotional state best compared to the climax of Oedipus Rex or the final sentences of a Lovecraft story.

 

[Drizzle]

Aykroyd is such an amazing dude that I listened to a multi hour long Joe Rogan interview for his sake. An experience that, normally, would put me in an emotional state best compared to the climax of Oedipus Rex or the final sentences of a Lovecraft story.

I listened to him on Dana Carvey and David Spade's podcast where he talked a bit about his fascination with the supernatural. The guy really has a talent for it.

 

[BatLobster]

Ultimately, I just don't have any stomach for Gen X nostalgia. It feels like an incredibly depressing strangehold on media. These old properties being worshipped by filmmakers and studios as fetish objects, the memory of childhood viewings given priority over what the movies actually are and what they are about. There's a lot of fun, clever stuff in Ghostbusters - it's a total Reagan era satire about small business, New York, academia etc and a modernization of that could potentially be funny and clever. These movies were about things, things that are way more interesting than the cloying fan culture that surrounds them.

Aykroyd is great, I would lowkey love him to get to make the completely insane version of Ghostbusters he originally wanted to make. Wonderful, deeply weird man.

I understand where you're coming from, but personally speaking, when it comes to my relationship with the franchise...I'm not Gen X. I'm on the older end of millenial. The original Ghostbusters came out before I was born, but Ghostbusters II...THAT was my movie, as a kid. Ghostbusters II and the cartoons totally shaped my overall feeling about what Ghostbusters is, probably even more than the original film. And for full context, I was a Ghostbusters fan before I ever was introduced to Star Wars for example. So for someone my age, Ghostbusters and TMNT are kind of the ground zero for all things genre/sci-fi/etc. that I would go onto love. It holds a very special place in my heart for that reason.

The satirical elements are definitely there in the original film, but I also think at the same time...it's just a incredibly fun movie and that's okay. It was the first post-Star Wars movie to bridge being a special-effects blockbuster with being a comedy. It has a unique footprint in movie history because it successfully bridges so many different genres. You can't ever do another movie about scientists catching ghosts without it feeling like a Ghostbusters ripoff the same way you can't really do a movie about bringing dinosaurs back to life without it being a Jurassic Park ripoff. Personally, while I admittedly don't mind a bit of nostalgia and familiar faces with my ghostbusting, I also just enjoy the overall concept of Ghostbusters so I'm down with more movies that can play with the concept in new ways. I hope Frozen Empire is good, it looks like a blast to me, but we'll see.

 

[DyeLorean]

There's a lot of fun, clever stuff in Ghostbusters - it's a total Reagan era satire about small business, New York, academia etc and a modernization of that could potentially be funny and clever. These movies were about things, things that are way more interesting than the cloying fan culture that surrounds them.

This is interesting. Because I'm not from the US, I have no idea what life in New York was in that era, I have no idea about Reagan as a president... and still the movie worked for me as a kid on many other levels (and like BatLobster said, GBII and TRGB maybe even more so). The movie might very well be all that you just mentioned, but in the end... it's still just a horror/comedy about guys catching ghosts. Above anything, is supposed to be fun.
And while completely different in tone, message and made in a completely different lanscape in culture, Afterlife still had those very same ingredients of fun in it.

 

[psylockolussus]

I'm interested to see how will this perform at the boX office.

I watched the newer movies and I don't think this IP is that interesting to lead to a lot of movies. I'm quite shocked and impressed at the same time, that Sony managed to make 3 movies of this IP under ten years, especially they have yet to film a 21 Jump Street 3 and Jumanji 3 with the Rock.