Spoilers So, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire? [spoiler thread]

Good or bad?

  • Good

    Votes: 14 77.8%
  • Bad

    Votes: 4 22.2%

General_Tangent

Adventurer
I saw it last Friday and I really enjoyed it. It's nice to see that William Atherton reconciled his differences and returned.

I recall Jason Reitman say that William blamed Ivan for fans saying that he lacked a certain part of his anatomy.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

GreyLord

Legend
They managed four believe it or not since T2. I didn't mind part 3, but it wasn't a good movie at all (just better than I remembered it was when I saw it again). Salvation was awful and Genysis was a different flavor of awful but still awful. I didn't see the Dark Fate because I was too burned out on the franchise by then.

Salvation wasn't awful to me, just boring. Genysis was actually fun and interesting. More enjoyable to me than #3, but FAR less than 1 and 2. Dark Fate was just...I don't know why they did it. They took what was good and fun about #2 and the payoff at the end and just...tried to destroy it. Perhaps if they had done it in a way that was enjoyable it would have been one thing...but they didn't and that's probably why it's at the bottom of my Terminator list.

Haven't seen the new Ghostbusters movie yet, so no idea whether I will like it or not.
 

Blue Orange

Gone to Texas
Cthulhu was in that cartoon!
Technically, it was CAthulu, because they were worried about copyright (Arkham House was still suing people back then). But, hells yeah, Michael Reaves wrote the script with star spawn, shoggoths, the Necronomicon, and minor characters named Alice Derleth, Clark Ashton, and Ted Klein that introduced me to the Cthulhu Mythos.
There was also an episode that didn't include Big C but had a Lovecraftian Ancient One, a Nameless Book, and ghasts and nightgaunts.

Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!
 

The movie -- it wasn't good. It wasn't terrible, it just had no reason to exist, didn't add anything of its own, and wasn't all that interesting.

Of the sequels, I think Afterlife was a perfectly respectable 'tangential' film (took place outside NY, focused more on Egon's granddaughter, etc.). If it'd been named something like "Spengler: a Ghostbusters Story" I don't think anyone could complain about it being part of the original film's legacy. Otherwise, I haven't really liked any of them (even if some have gotten more criticism than they really deserve). Important to note, I think that's decidedly true of Ghostbusters II--which as a kid I watched on VHS semi-frequently and considered part of the package with the first, but now I look back on and realize is a pretty pale imitation of the original.
The OG cast are really just extended cameos. Aykroyd is in it the most, just tends to pop up in scenes he wasn’t in and just talk like he was there all along. Murray has under 10 lines I’d guess.
Murray has a real problem not phoning it in with things for which he has no enthusiasm. Previously, that meant he just turned down a lot of work. At some point, though, I think he decided that he likes easy paychecks. Between Space Jam 2, Zombieland 2, these past two Ghostbuster sequels, and letting a T-shirt/NFT store pretend he's their friend, he seems to be doing a lot of low-effort ways of cashing in* on the bizarre fascination** people have had with him for the past 10-20 years.
*Garfield, at least, was him thinking he was slumming with one of his favorite directors, because he didn't know Joel Coen spelled his name w/o an H.
**since Robin Williams' passing, he seems to have been unofficially crowned the elder statesmen of comedy-you-remember-from-your-childhood.


Aykroyd both makes the most sense as the one with real lines, and is surprising in that he hasn't done more in the last two movies. This is still some of his favorite things. I suspect either they don't think people tune in to see him, or he's disagreed with the direction they are taking things and thus he wasn't given as many lines as he'd like.
Alien and Terminator managed quite respectable sequels. But the sequels sort of prove your point; both changed style and tone considerably, shifting toward action rather than horror. They didn't try to catch the same lightning as the originals. Instead, each used the original as a springboard for something new.
They are the exceptions that prove the rules and an example of what to do to make a new good movie (make actual changes). Sadly, enough sequels that don't do that still are commercial successes, so I guess sometimes the lesson isn't learned.
Then I find myself glad I never watched the cartoon.

I never get on well with cartoons anyway. Confirmation that that's basically what this is tells me why I didn't like the film. And also confirmation that--like most cartoons--I wouldn't like the cartoon.
With the caveat that it is a children's cartoon from the 80s, it is actually fine. Again, it does so by willing to change up genre and framing. It really leans into the GBs as glorified exterminators -- pretty much Venkman and the Green Ghost* in the hotel dinning room scene (much more wacky hijinks than the first movie in total), made into a series. I don't really think the newest films replicate the cartoon, so much as they replicate the stories children made up playing with toys made to cash in on the cartoon. *which became 'Slimer,' and the protagonist's wacky cartoon mascot character.
They managed four believe it or not since T2. I didn't mind part 3, but it wasn't a good movie at all (just better than I remembered it was when I saw it again). Salvation was awful and Genysis was a different flavor of awful but still awful. I didn't see the Dark Fate because I was too burned out on the franchise by then.
As someone mentioned, Dark Fate negated/made futile the two original (good) movies, and as such pissed people off. If you go into it with an 'I don't care what you do to this continuity, I'm considering this an alternate reality or something' attitude, it is a perfectly acceptable showcase of Linda Hamilton's acting skills (that still had no reason to exist).
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
Other than T3, none of the Terminator sequels after T2 (note: I haven't seen the Christian Bale screaming one) have been worse than the Ghostbuster sequels. The issue there is that they keep hitting the reset button, and the audience knows it. Any of the sequels, including the excellent Sarah Connor Chronicles, would have been a perfectly fine basis for an ongoing series of movies. And in total, they actually add up to a fun story about what a mess the timestream is, although they probably need someone to lampshade that, when they inevitably reboot the franchise again.
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
With the caveat that it is a children's cartoon from the 80s, it is actually fine. Again, it does so by willing to change up genre and framing. It really leans into the GBs as glorified exterminators -- pretty much Venkman and the Green Ghost* in the hotel dinning room scene (much more wacky hijinks than the first movie in total), made into a series. I don't really think the newest films replicate the cartoon, so much as they replicate the stories children made up playing with toys made to cash in on the cartoon. *which became 'Slimer,' and the protagonist's wacky cartoon mascot character.
The cartoon and the Ghostbusters RPG always felt like they were leaning into the same story ideas. Pick up the idea of running a Ghostbusters business where you go after a monster of the week every session and hijinks ensue. It's the natural way to go from the first movie's setup into an ongoing serial setup. If I were going to run a Ghostbusters game these days I'd definitely just rip off one of the cartoon episodes for a scenario :)

The movies don't feel like that. The first sequel basically tried to put everyone back to where they were at the beginning of the first movie then tell a similar story and it doesn't quite work. The reboot was basically a reboot which means again telling the same story. Aftermath leaned heavily into being a nostalgia trip for people in their 40s/50s - the new one looked to me like it would be more of the same. I'm not surprised they couldn't pull that off a second time.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
The cartoon and the Ghostbusters RPG always felt like they were leaning into the same story ideas. Pick up the idea of running a Ghostbusters business where you go after a monster of the week every session and hijinks ensue. It's the natural way to go from the first movie's setup into an ongoing serial setup. If I were going to run a Ghostbusters game these days I'd definitely just rip off one of the cartoon episodes for a scenario :)

The movies don't feel like that. The first sequel basically tried to put everyone back to where they were at the beginning of the first movie then tell a similar story and it doesn't quite work. The reboot was basically a reboot which means again telling the same story. Aftermath leaned heavily into being a nostalgia trip for people in their 40s/50s - the new one looked to me like it would be more of the same. I'm not surprised they couldn't pull that off a second time.
If anything, the way to milk this franchise is with a TV series not starring anyone from the movies -- who are almost all too expensive for that -- and feature some losers setting up the worst Ghostbusters franchise in a place that doesn't seem like it can financially support them and running into problems from a community that already knows of the franchisees as idiots, conmen and losers.

Ghostbusters: Sheboygan or something.

They could have periodic guest star appearances from the movie folks in the form of videos sent out to all franchisees or maybe coming to inspect a failing franchise. But don't lean on them. Lean into the Wellington Paranormal/Los Espookys vibes.
 

Argyle King

Legend
Overall, I enjoyed the movie.

I wouldn't say it was great, and even "good" might be a stretch, but it has some cool moments and enough of a good core idea to manage better than average.

My main 'complaint' is that, for as cool (no pun intended) as I think the villain could have been; the villain and the movie's overall story sometimes comes across as a wannabe-Gozer.

I also feel that there were some missed opportunities to potentially do more interesting things in the story. For example, I think the Fire Master could have used ghost-girl's ghost flames.

Again, I overall enjoyed the movie. It just seemed to lack some of the soul that Afterlife had.

All things considered, I'm okay with it as a send-off for the old characters. I'm also happy with the special popcorn bucket that was available at my local AMC.
 


The cartoon and the Ghostbusters RPG always felt like they were leaning into the same story ideas. Pick up the idea of running a Ghostbusters business where you go after a monster of the week every session and hijinks ensue. It's the natural way to go from the first movie's setup into an ongoing serial setup. If I were going to run a Ghostbusters game these days I'd definitely just rip off one of the cartoon episodes for a scenario :)

The movies don't feel like that. The first sequel basically tried to put everyone back to where they were at the beginning of the first movie then tell a similar story and it doesn't quite work. The reboot was basically a reboot which means again telling the same story. Aftermath leaned heavily into being a nostalgia trip for people in their 40s/50s - the new one looked to me like it would be more of the same. I'm not surprised they couldn't pull that off a second time.
Have you seen Lockwood and Co on Netflix?
 

Remove ads

Top