Comedy Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire

[BatLobster]

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.

For whatever it's worth, I grew up in New York. So the idea of it being some sort of clever commentary on New York in the 80s was far, far beyond my comprehension as a kid . They were just the guys' busting ghosts in a setting that was very familiar to me.

Although I did kind of appreciate how they make miserable New Yorkers needing to be nicer to each other part of the plot of the second movie. Even as an adult, I love that it dared to be that corny!

 

[Drizzle]

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

It should have a decent opening weekend but beyond that will depend on how well it's received. If word of mouth is good it could hold its own against Godzilla X Kong the following week.

 

[psylockolussus]

It should have a decent opening weekend but beyond that will depend on how well it's received. If word of mouth is good it could hold its own against Godzilla X Kong the following week.

If thats the case then a 6th Ghostbusters film would likely happen soon. I've checked Sony's other franchises (21 Jump Street, MIB, Charlie's Angels, Jumanji, Bad Boys). Aside from Spider-Man, its impressive that this one remains to be an ongoing movie franchise, well for now.

I have yet to see the first two films, so there's no nostalgia effect for me. Though as a kid, I remember watching the cartoon series.

 

[Jack Reacher]

Ghostbusters Frozen Franchise.

I think Sony is worried about this one based on how heavy the nostalgia-bait is in the marketing.

 

[DyeLorean]

I saw something strange in the latest trailer in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it (won't post because it might be a spoiler) and combined with a scene from the teaser, I have a hunch there's a lot of stuff they're not showing.

 

[BeserkerHilf]

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.

It's all very interesting to me, because Sony really doesn't have a lot in terms of storied IP that they get to call their own outside of Ghostbusters.

Ghostbusters ATC was symptomatic of all the worst mistakes in franchise filmmaking at that, namely "Why are they spending this much money on this?" when a lot of studios were just expecting their movies to do big business.
The 21 Jump Street series thrived on a meta-awareness of franchise filmmaking and IP graverobbing. If they weren't going to give us the MiB crossover (or any of the proposed sequels in 22's credits), I don't need more.
Jumanji 3 at least appears to have some movement, if not for the stalls presented by COVID and the strikes.

I know his reputation around these parts is not looked upon kindly, but let's give credit where credit's due: Tom Rothman is applying all his best decisions from his early Fox tenure to Sony right now. Looking at ATC's massive failure that he inherited from Amy Pascal, it was extremely smart to scale it's budget back quite a lot. Paid off, too, as the ROI in a Fall/Winter slot during COVID (~$140m) was a lot better than that of ATC's Summer slot ($85m), not even counting better home video sales and merchandise.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

My one caveat to my intense dislike of these movies: McKenna Grace is fantastic. Absolute movie star material.

 

[henzINNIT]

My one caveat to my intense dislike of these movies: McKenna Grace is fantastic. Absolute movie star material.

Yeah she was very charming in Afterlife, can see her going far for sure. Grace is a pretty successful pop star too. The kid is ridiculous.

 

[Arnold Rimmer]

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.

You're seriously gonna protect the supposed "feminist" reboot that was nothing but dick-bashing, gross-out humor (that "ghost vomit" scene was just repulsive) and stupid running gags about soup over a genuine return to form that honored a fallen co-creator?

Screw you.

 

[DyeLorean]

The 2016 GB might have looked good on paper. I mean, much like the original '84, a group of comedians doing a horror/action/comedy with a director that worked with them already. Not unlike Paul Feig with McCarthy and Wiig. Again, in theory that sounds ok, can't blame Sony entirely for that.

...But that movie just didn't work at all. The tone, the look, the "jokes". Oh no. It was also way too close to the original to make its own footprint in the franchise, and that was an ever bigger disadvantage. It shows how much lightning in a bottle that original film was.

In that regard GB: Afterlife was a genius course-correction. They just couldn't do another Ghostbusters in New York after that 2016 film. The fact that got to do something like Frozen Empire and make it look so cool IMO, is a small miracle to be honest.

 

[Drizzle]

You're seriously gonna protect the supposed "feminist" reboot that was nothing but dick-bashing, gross-out humor (that "ghost vomit" scene was just repulsive) and stupid running gags about soup over a genuine return to form that honored a fallen co-creator?

Screw you.

 

[BeserkerHilf]

Seriously, drop off the face of the Earth.

 

[Sithborg]

You're seriously gonna protect the supposed "feminist" reboot that was nothing but dick-bashing, gross-out humor (that "ghost vomit" scene was just repulsive) and stupid running gags about soup over a genuine return to form that honored a fallen co-creator?

Screw you.

I will take that over Murray's "schtick".

And once again, how in the world is that character assassination of a movie an honor to a fallen creator.

 

[henzINNIT]

GB 2016 was bad, but not 'evil feminist agenda' bad, just 'loud and not funny' bad. Ghostbusters humour is very specific, and Paul Feig was not the guy. For all the flack the film got, it wasn't the ladies' fault, and they could have been great with the right filmmaker.

Afterlife wasn't the ideal course correction for me. I love the analogue style visual effects and the more low-key approach. I wasn't sure about a child lead but Phoebe was great. That treacly tone was overbearing though, completely counter to the tone of GB and Harold Ramis' work in general. Couple that with an incredibly lazy third act, the truck loads of nostalgia bait, and the questionable CGI cameo; and that ending is rough. Despite Reitman's insistence otherwise, it feels like pandering. Cynical. And at some level it surely is when you can go out and buy dead character action figures.

Frozen Empire has potential. A new villain is a huge step as far as I'm concerned, ha. I hope it is fantastic.

 

[BatLobster]

The 2016 GB might have looked good on paper. I mean, much like the original '84, a group of comedians doing a horror/action/comedy with a director that worked with them already. Not unlike Paul Feig with McCarthy and Wiig. Again, in theory that sounds ok, can't blame Sony entirely for that.

...But that movie just didn't work at all. The tone, the look, the "jokes". Oh no. It was also way too close to the original to make its own footprint in the franchise, and that was an ever bigger disadvantage. It shows how much lightning in a bottle that original film was.

In that regard GB: Afterlife was a genius course-correction. They just couldn't do another Ghostbusters in New York after that 2016 film. The fact that got to do something like Frozen Empire and make it look so cool IMO, is a small miracle to be honest.

Yup. I file the 2016 movie under the category of "it was worth a shot". I really wanted it to be good. After Harold Ramis' death, it seemed like a Ghostbusters 3 was going to be impossible and the idea of any new Ghostbusters movie seemed like a minor miracle. You had a director who was on a hot streak, a great new cast who were SNL alumni. It could've worked, but unfortunately just didn't. Feig didn't get the tone right and ultimately, remaking the original film while having the original cast show up in random cameos didn't help win over anyone. I think if the movie had been better on its own merits, it may have eased the blow of doing a total reboot, but the combo of lackluster movie + ignoring the original continuity was a tough combo. I think it also set itself up for failure by inviting direct comparison to a classic, which is a problem many remakes face. Afterlife positioned itself as a different type of movie which I think allowed it to succeed more on its own merits-- yes, even with all the nostalgia and the third act.

I still loved the ending though. I don't care, call me a sap. I got teary eyed. All I can say is it hits a bit different if you've lost someone and you have memories of watching Ghostbusters with them as a kid. I didn't feel pandered to, I felt moved in a way that I enjoy being moved at the movies. And I absolute love that a Ghostbusters movie managed to do that. It's not like it was some left field thing either, it was the natural emotional climax that the whole film had very clearly built towards.

 

[Drizzle]

To me the problem with Ghostbusters 2016 was never that it was an all-female team. By all means, go ahead and do that...but within the same continuity. They could have had Wiig's character be Egon's daughter and gone from there. I was more against the idea of it being a remake when literally everyone besides obviously Ramis was available to make a proper Ghostbusters 3.

As it is, Afterlife is more effective as a love letter to the first movie and especially Ramis but is vastly different from the first two movies apart from recycling the same villains. Frozen Empire looks to be much more back to basics.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

You're seriously gonna protect the supposed "feminist" reboot that was nothing but dick-bashing, gross-out humor (that "ghost vomit" scene was just repulsive) and stupid running gags about soup over a genuine return to form that honored a fallen co-creator?

Screw you.

Mhm. About the level of civil, thoughtful discourse me and the rest of the board have come to expect from you. You know what's a great way to integrate yourself into a long standing online community? By perpetually being a whiny, peevish, belligerent jerk.

You have contributed nothing here since you came onboard apart from deeply irritating other people while narrowly avoiding actually breaking any set rules (apart from those of basic social decency) until, to our great relief, right now.

I'm going to be very, very, very generous and only give you a nice long vacation. If you choose to come back and participate again afterwards, let this be a teachable moment because that will be your last chance.

 

[BeserkerHilf]

How long is the suspension??

I gots ta know.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

How long is the suspension??

I gots ta know.

Two months breaking rocks in the gulag.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

To me the problem with Ghostbusters 2016 was never that it was an all-female team. By all means, go ahead and do that...but within the same continuity. They could have had Wiig's character be Egon's daughter and gone from there. I was more against the idea of it being a remake when literally everyone besides obviously Ramis was available to make a proper Ghostbusters 3.

As it is, Afterlife is more effective as a love letter to the first movie and especially Ramis but is vastly different from the first two movies apart from recycling the same villains. Frozen Empire looks to be much more back to basics.

Yeah, which is why I dig it so much. It's very much The Force Awakens meets the Goonies, for Ghostbusters.

I actually like the 2016 film, though I don't think it's great or anything. I also don't find it very "Ghostbusters". That said, I am blown away by how many men take it as some sort of personal affront, proving that any theoretical "anti-man" might be valid.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Dudes reacting to a dumb, loud, silly studio comedy that amounts to a lengthy SNL sketch like it's the SCUM Manifesto will never stop being the funniest thing ever.

 

[Sithborg]

Still dumbfounded by the "you shouldn't cast SNL alums" takes.

 

[BoredGuy]

I didn't love the idea from the outset, as the studio saying only "its Ghostbusters, but all women!" felt gimmicky
I've never had an issue with women being on the team, and I love that the new movie has a good mix, but it felt limiting

But mostly I'm not a huge fan of any of the actresses who were involved, or of Feig's previous films, so they lost me quickly
If it had been like, the Parks and Rec ladies and a more talented director, I'd have been on board

 

[DyeLorean]

A vastly different take on the idea would've been welcomed. It just felt too close to the original, the comparisons became inevitable. And most of the choices they made were not favorable.
I don't really pay attention to the discourse around it, as they have nothing to do with the film itself. Much like what is being talked in the 007 forums when Daniel Craig was announced. A lot of noise around that casting choice, and then the movie came and everyone shut up.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

For the record I also don't think 2016 is a particularly good movie. I like it fine, it's wildly hit and miss in the way most really improv heavy comedies are but it got a good couple of big laughs out of me which is more positive emotion than I mustered at any point during Afterlife. The central conceit of just doing a reboot where you take modern comedic actors and throw them into the Ghostbusting scenario is a much more appealing way of doing a modern iteration in my opinion, making it a reboot also cuts you off from being able to rely on the old characters, not that this saved 2016 from drowning itself in unnecessary callbacks. The cameos in 2016 weren't side splitting or anything but I derived considerably more enjoyment out of Murray's scene and Aykroyd pretty much playing himself than I did seeing them hobbling around like poorly lit elderly ghouls in the old kit.

But that's all it is, a lark. Nothing particularly special. I do fundamentally think it is closer to what the original movie was than Afterlife is. The comedic style is entirely different and it also isn't really a clever satire of anything, but "A group of SNL alumni/comic actors ****ing around and battling ghosts" is at its core what Ghostbusters was. Doing something different from that is fine! I just think the different thing they did was the most unappealing concept possible.