Discuss the upcoming 4th movie, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire to be released in March 2024.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#5000469
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 12th, 2024, 10:00 amAnd your point is...?
My point is Sony/Jason/Gil aren't just going to suddenly throw out the Afterlife/Frozen Empire characters just because you don't like them. I believe the audience as a whole has accepted the Spenglers, and it's only a vocal minority who actively dislike them/are calling for their removal. I believe the fact we got Frozen Empire is proof enough that more people have embraced them than rejected them.

And I'm not sure how you can definitively state that people aren't rewatching Afterlife, it's been available on home media and streaming for the better part of three years now, those metrics are harder for us to track than the film's box office (which again, was successful enough to convince Sony to greenlight a sequel). Plus your seem to ignore the fact that the film opened during the pandemic, which hit a slew of films.

And it seems pretty safe to assume that Jason and Gil are developing "Ghostbusters 5" with the cast to be helmed by Gary, Callie, Phoebe, Trevor, and probably also feature Lucky and Podcast.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 12th, 2024, 10:00 amI think it's common knowledge that problem with 2016 wasn't the cast.
Regardless, after twice seeing the main characters get replaced for new main characters, I don't think the solution is to implement another replacement.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 12th, 2024, 10:00 amIs it really "solved" though...? At that age, she should be a high school senior. A college freshman at the most. The 1984 cast were already late 20's or 30-something PhD's.
We can accept child prodigies like Doogie Howser and Peter Parker, why is it hard to accept Phoebe in a world where ghosts can be captured and trapped, and where the Ghostbusters have fought with a god and a wizard trapped in a painting?
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 12th, 2024, 10:00 amPoint was whoever owns what sells it off.
And why would Winston sell it? Why sould the plot call for that to happen?
Winston knows better than most people how dangerous the job is, so it seems likely he'd do everything he can to ensure it stays in the hands of people who have some idea of what Ghostbusters entails, rather than "sell it off to another band of misfit PhDs".

Whether Egon owned the equipment (in part, or totality) is a good question (though sadly one we won't see answered) but I don't know if that means Callie would inherit his share of the equipment upon his death. Even if she did, she seems fully aware of just how dangerous the equipment is, so again, I doubt she'd sell any Ghostbusters equipment to another band of misfit PhDs.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 12th, 2024, 10:00 amGhostbusters acting as a franchise to tell a "coming of age" story is a non-starter for me.
That's fine, it seems fair to say plenty of other people enjoyed that story.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 12th, 2024, 10:00 amBeing gay or lesbian frankly isn't an interesting story to tell anymore
In your opinion.
With how the world is at the moment, there's still plenty of reason to keep creating LGBTQ+ characters... They don't have to be the next Harvey Milk, Marsha P. Johnson, Elliot Page or Bella Ramsey to still be meaningful and important to people.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 12th, 2024, 10:00 ambecause no one cares in this day and age.
That simply isn't true.
Just look at the turnout for an LGBTQ+ pride event (it can either be in a small town or a big city), those by themselves show plenty of people care. Turn your attention to newspapers, cable news channels, or news websites, and you'll see plenty of efforts by people who hate the LGBTQ+ community and are trying to take away their hard-won rights - so those people also care about the LGBTQ+ community (but for the wrong reasons).

Only people who have a prejudiced/dismissive view of the LGBTQ+ community claim that "nobody cares" about people being LGBTQ+.

Phoebe had a teenage crush, that was it. You're making what was depicted in the film sound more salacious than it actually was.

And if we're going to talk about romantic plot lines being shoehorned into a Ghostbusters movie, I think the Louis/Janine plot was far more egregious and pointless compared to Phoebe and Melody's.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 12th, 2024, 10:00 amNo offense, but the phrase that comes to mind here is "Stockholm Syndrome".
There's no Stockholm Syndrome here. I think some people need to temper their expectations with what Sony is going to give us. If you went in expecting something like The Avengers then I think that's all on you, especially as there was nothing seen in the filming that suggested anything with that kind of epic city-wide battle.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 12th, 2024, 10:00 amPatton Oswalt is one of those actors that just doesn't have a serious bone in his body.
You've not watched enough of Patton's work. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Ratatouille, Big Fan, The Circle come to mind. More of his animation voice work may be good examples of his more serious acting, but I've not seen his less mainstream animated work.

And he meshed perfectly well with Ghostbusters, he was a little kooky... But he came across as authoritative when talking about the dead language Podcast recorded, and the orb of Garraka, and chasing after Possessor and his encounter with Patience the possessed lion. His deleted scene (the coffee bit aside) is another good example of him delivering a pretty straight and serious performance.

Considering Venkman once asked a woman if she was menstruating, openly hit on Dana during her interview and investigation, Egon ran some questionable psychological experiments on people, the Ghostbusters aren't always the most straight-laced of scientists.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 12th, 2024, 10:00 amAnd your point here is....?
I think you know what my point is, and you're just saying that to be a troll, but I'll answer it anyway:
My point is that Patton was a fair inclusion in the film, and probably was a better actor (comedy and serious) than Rick was in Ghostbusters II.
zeta otaku, WCat2000, Fritz and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By gerard55
#5000472
With a bit of luck the next movie ditches the family drama and actually lets us see some ghostbusting, what a concept in a movie called "Ghostbusters"...
Corey91, One time liked this
By BatDan
#5000490
If we move forward. Bring it back to basics. Character wise.

4 busters. 2 efficient staff members. One love interest. One human antagonist. Thats it. No firemasters, librarian friends, and ghost friends.

Have it be a more intimate character-based threat. Pheobe meeting her match and overcoming it.

Now that Pheobe is an adult. Its time for her to face a ghost that terrified her grandfather..The Boogieman.

With a boogeyman story you can have it “feel” big while writing it “small”

Also be super cool to see Ray and Winston face an RGB villain in live action.
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#5000493
GuyX wrote: October 11th, 2024, 11:46 am Why is that? Any theories?
A lot of the younger generations who didn't grow up with the films don't understand the appeal and therefore hate on it.
User avatar
By One time
#5000506
I love GB 1 and I love Afterlife. Because both juxtapose that wonderful, serious drama and tension with the wonderfully absurd premise of the otherworldly.

In my opinion neither are overt comedies, GB1 is full of sarcastic and somewhat cynical jokes (is that the right word?) that I only learned to appreciate after a certain age. Afterlife has that wonderful quirky child genius humor which Phoebe portrays with an underlying tension.

The humor in both was different to Ghostbusters 2 and FE, which to me are “lighter” movies that are more run of the mill comedies.

I think FE lost that “gritty” or “serious” edge that was at the heart of the juxtaposition in GB1 and Afterlife, which is one of the reasons it didn’t do too well. It tried to be more like GB2, which (on the whole) is not regarded as a movie as good as GB1, and for valid kid friendly cashgrab reasons.

The OG’s in FE also never talk to or riff off each other (apart from Winston very out of character scolding Ray), which I, and many fans had wanted to see since 89. Even Venkman and Peck should have had a great “moment” together but all we got was “Peck, you clown”. The OG’s were in it, but they weren’t really in it together if that makes sense.

All truly great art has an inherent juxtaposition of contrasting themes or ideas. I hope any future project goes back to incorporating that darker, grittier more serious tone to contrast with the absurd theme (like GB1 and AF), apart from also being a better thought out Ghostbusters film than FE was.
BatDan liked this
User avatar
By Specter Mitcher
#5000528
Kingpin wrote: October 12th, 2024, 2:20 pm
My point is Sony/Jason/Gil aren't just going to suddenly throw out the Afterlife/Frozen Empire characters just because you don't like them. I believe the audience as a whole has accepted the Spenglers, and it's only a vocal minority who actively dislike them/are calling for their removal. I believe the fact we got Frozen Empire is proof enough that more people have embraced them than rejected them.
I don't know what else to tell you, man. I agree that they probably aren't going to toss out those characters, at least not anytime soon. But the fact they're stuck with them now doesn't change the fact it was a bad writing decision, and they (somehow) need to right the ship with GB 5.
And I'm not sure how you can definitively state that people aren't rewatching Afterlife, it's been available on home media and streaming for the better part of three years now, those metrics are harder for us to track than the film's box office (which again, was successful enough to convince Sony to greenlight a sequel). Plus your seem to ignore the fact that the film opened during the pandemic, which hit a slew of films.
No offense, but this statement is pure copium.
And it seems pretty safe to assume that Jason and Gil are developing "Ghostbusters 5" with the cast to be helmed by Gary, Callie, Phoebe, Trevor, and probably also feature Lucky and Podcast.

Regardless, after twice seeing the main characters get replaced for new main characters, I don't think the solution is to implement another replacement.

It is my opinion that doing so would be a more efficient and effective strategy that pumping out another half dozen movies while the child actors who keep saving the day finally reach the age of 25. The whole "children save the day" thing never should have even reached the brainstorm roundtable before GBA's first draft.
We can accept child prodigies like Doogie Howser and Peter Parker, why is it hard to accept Phoebe in a world where ghosts can be captured and trapped, and where the Ghostbusters have fought with a god and a wizard trapped in a painting?
I don't recall Doogie Howser ever becoming a cultural phenomenon like Ghostbusters. It was not received well at all and was canceled, so I'm not sure how that redeems Phoebe. Neither is it apparent how a super hero flick like Spider Man does, either. Super powers from getting bit by a spider, versus a 13 year old repairing an experimental particle accelerator, surviving getting shot at by a ghost that can play machine gun, and saving the day against Gozer is....comparing apples and bowling balls.
And why would Winston sell it? Why sould the plot call for that to happen?
Winston knows better than most people how dangerous the job is, so it seems likely he'd do everything he can to ensure it stays in the hands of people who have some idea of what Ghostbusters entails, rather than "sell it off to another band of misfit PhDs".
Frankly, the fact this needs to happen should be glaringly obvious. He should sell it because a proper passing of the torch is a more riveting storyline than him turning it into a private equity venture. Everyone knows the OG crew is too old to carry this franchise through the next generation.
Whether Egon owned the equipment (in part, or totality) is a good question (though sadly one we won't see answered) but I don't know if that means Callie would inherit his share of the equipment upon his death. Even if she did, she seems fully aware of just how dangerous the equipment is, so again, I doubt she'd sell any Ghostbusters equipment to another band of misfit PhDs.
Given the proper introduction and building of trust, I think it's perfectly feasible she would sell what she was willing to just hand over to the state for free in GBA to a new group of young scientists.
That's fine, it seems fair to say plenty of other people enjoyed that story.
The reviews suggest that the manifest weight of moviegoers did not.
In your opinion.
With how the world is at the moment, there's still plenty of reason to keep creating LGBTQ+ characters... They don't have to be the next Harvey Milk, Marsha P. Johnson, Elliot Page or Bella Ramsey to still be meaningful and important to people.
It's as interesting as any other love story. Meaning, it can add something positible to a movie if executed properly. It was *not* in Frozen Empire, in any sense whatsoever.
That simply isn't true.
Just look at the turnout for an LGBTQ+ pride event (it can either be in a small town or a big city), those by themselves show plenty of people care. Turn your attention to newspapers, cable news channels, or news websites, and you'll see plenty of efforts by people who hate the LGBTQ+ community and are trying to take away their hard-won rights - so those people also care about the LGBTQ+ community (but for the wrong reasons).
Not to get political, but I don't see any news stories of anyone trying to reverse the legality of gay marriage. I don't think you'd find a single person under 40 years old who would support that, either. Regardless, it makes no difference to the fact such a statement being made in a movie needs to be done in a way that doesn't detract from said movie.
Only people who have a prejudiced/dismissive view of the LGBTQ+ community claim that "nobody cares" about people being LGBTQ+.
Excuse me...? I'm straight and have multiple gay siblings who have blessed me with nieces and nephews I get to share the love of Ghostbusters with. As such, like any normal person these days, a couple that I encounter being homo or heterosexual doesn't really register with me as being anything of big importance. Maybe I'm "dismissive" because I don't really care either way...but IMO that's the healthy approach to these matters. The idea that just because someone is lesbian or gay they need to be given some sort of special consideration (or that we should "care" that they are) is just victim mentality silliness.
Phoebe had a teenage crush, that was it. You're making what was depicted in the film sound more salacious than it actually was.
I didn't say it was salacious. What I said was it was an underage love story that was executed in a way that was awkward and detracted from the film, and was clearly done to "check a box".
And if we're going to talk about romantic plot lines being shoehorned into a Ghostbusters movie, I think the Louis/Janine plot was far more egregious and pointless compared to Phoebe and Melody's.
Strange and out of place? Sure. Egregious?....not really IMHO.
There's no Stockholm Syndrome here. I think some people need to temper their expectations with what Sony is going to give us. If you went in expecting something like The Avengers then I think that's all on you, especially as there was nothing seen in the filming that suggested anything with that kind of epic city-wide battle.
No one should temper their expectations when it comes to multimedia conglomerates digging their closely cherished franchises up from the grave to reboot it. If they're going to start tinkering with the likes of Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, etc... we should demand something much better than mediocre.
You've not watched enough of Patton's work. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Ratatouille, Big Fan, The Circle come to mind. More of his animation voice work may be good examples of his more serious acting, but I've not seen his less mainstream animated work.

And he meshed perfectly well with Ghostbusters, he was a little kooky... But he came across as authoritative when talking about the dead language Podcast recorded, and the orb of Garraka, and chasing after Possessor and his encounter with Patience the possessed lion. His deleted scene (the coffee bit aside) is another good example of him delivering a pretty straight and serious performance.
I can't say you're personally right or wrong to like Patton Oswalt. My personal feelings are that his acting style and persona are a poor fit.
Considering Venkman once asked a woman if she was menstruating, openly hit on Dana during her interview and investigation, Egon ran some questionable psychological experiments on people, the Ghostbusters aren't always the most straight-laced of scientists.
I think comparing the dry humor of the 1984 movie to any of the latest three films is an exercise in futility. It was a masterclass enterprise that even GB2, while still good, didn't even come close to.
I think you know what my point is, and you're just saying that to be a troll, but I'll answer it anyway:
My point is that Patton was a fair inclusion in the film, and probably was a better actor (comedy and serious) than Rick was in Ghostbusters II.
Not trolling, dude. Just disgruntled by how bad nearly every movie seems to be these days.

Frozen Empire was, as a movie, medicore-at-best, but more aptly described as just "bad". The only reason anyone is giving it a pass is because it's Ghostbusters. The only places where GBA and FE aren't getting panned for the most part is GB superfan forums like this, where I apparently am in the minority in terms of my overall opinion.
Last edited by Kingpin on October 14th, 2024, 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.Reason: Edited post to separate replies from quotes.
User avatar
By Specter Mitcher
#5000530
SpaceBallz wrote: October 13th, 2024, 4:26 pm
GuyX wrote: October 11th, 2024, 11:46 am Why is that? Any theories?
A lot of the younger generations who didn't grow up with the films don't understand the appeal and therefore hate on it.
Again with this copium of blaming the audience. Is that really the issue? Or is it more likely that the film just isn't that good? As much as I hate to say it, I would proffer it is the latter.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#5000535
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 14th, 2024, 1:01 pm No offense, but this statement is pure copium.
Yet you provide nothing as a counter-argument beyond a twitch buzzword.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 14th, 2024, 1:01 pmIt is my opinion that doing so would be a more efficient and effective strategy that pumping out another half dozen movies while the child actors who keep saving the day finally reach the age of 25
Who's talking about another 6 films? I think most of us are thinking one, or two more films following the Spenglers at most. I suspect McKenna and Finn will have probably wanted to move on to other projects by the time we ring in the year 2030.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 14th, 2024, 1:01 pmI don't recall Doogie Howser ever becoming a cultural phenomenon like Ghostbusters.
Why should Ghostbusters being a cultural phenomenon make a difference?
But if we're basing things just on being a "cultural phenomenon", then Peter Parker was 15 in his debut comic and in Spider-Man: Homecoming, Percy Jackson is 16 in the first book of his series, Harry Potter is 11 in his, Katiniss Everdeen is 16 in the first Hunger Games book, Arya Stark is 9 in the first Game of Thrones book and 11 in the first season of the television series... And I'm sure there are plenty of other books, films and television shows where the protagonists were young, but managed to do amazing things despite their age - not all were child geniuses, granted, but fiction is repleat with child prodigies of a sort.

And Mozart composed his first masterpiece (Minuet in G major KV 1) when he was 5.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 14th, 2024, 1:01 pmNeither is it apparent how a super hero flick like Spider Man does, either.
Peter's spider bite didn't give him the intelligence to build his web-shooters, or to all the other technical and scientific things he does throughout the movies and comics... Peter was gifted with a scientific intellect, same as Phoebe.

You're really going to a substantial effort to poke holes in one character from a universe that has people wrangling and capturing ghosts with lasers.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 14th, 2024, 1:01 pmEveryone knows the OG crew is too old to carry this franchise through the next generation.
And Winston has already found the natural successors.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 14th, 2024, 1:01 pmThe reviews suggest that the manifest weight of moviegoers did not.
Reviews aren't a dedicated survey of every person on the planet who saw the movie.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 14th, 2024, 1:01 pmIt's as interesting as any other love story. Meaning, it can add something positible to a movie if executed properly. It was *not* in Frozen Empire, in any sense whatsoever.
Agree to disagree. As I've said before, I felt it helped humanise Phoebe.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 14th, 2024, 1:01 pmNot to get political, but I don't see any news stories of anyone trying to reverse the legality of gay marriage.
Then you need to absorb more of the news from around the world.
Georgia (the country) recently passed a swathe of anti-LGBTQ leiglsation packaged up as "family values".
Physical assaults against LGBTQ+ people have been on the rise in western nations like the U.S., U.K. and so on following wins by political-right parties and politicians.

And then there's the elephant in the room; after the abolishment of Roe V. Wade in the United States, evangelical Christians are almost certainly champing at the bit to have marriage equality rescinded, either via the Supreme Court, or should Trump get a second term.

We don't live in some kind of pro-LGBTQ utopia, we live in a world where we've made some progress and had some luck... But that progress can as quickly be taken away by something as simple as the result of an election.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 14th, 2024, 1:01 pmI don't think you'd find a single person under 40 years old who would support that, either.
There are plenty of religiously conservative 20-30 year olds. Again, just look at the young people who were calling for (and celebrated) the end of Roe V. Wade.
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 14th, 2024, 1:01 pmand was clearly done to "check a box".
Because having one main character out of 13 be LGBTQ+ is "box checking"? Got it. :eyeroll:
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 14th, 2024, 1:01 pmMy personal feelings are that his acting style and persona are a poor fit.
And I think the results in the film speak to the contrary. Of the many things that Frozen Empire gets critiqued for, Patton's acting rarely seems to come up, it's almost like the only people who complain about him and his role are the people who were complaining about him being cast, back before the film had even come out.

If you want a good example of bad casting in one of the '80s continuity Ghostbusters films, I direct you to Eugene Levy... I like him as an actor, but his performance of Sherman Tully was unpleasant to watch... Like a whinier version of Louis. I think it's obvious why his role was cut from the film.
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#5000558
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 14th, 2024, 1:32 pm
SpaceBallz wrote: October 13th, 2024, 4:26 pm

A lot of the younger generations who didn't grow up with the films don't understand the appeal and therefore hate on it.
Again with this copium of blaming the audience. Is that really the issue? Or is it more likely that the film just isn't that good? As much as I hate to say it, I would proffer it is the latter.
I'm not entirely sure what kind of argument you dragged me into, but I was replying to GuyX with a plausible realistic theory other than the "the movies suck so let the franchise die" bandwagon that you appear to be on?
Kingpin, seekandannoy liked this
By Davideverona
#5000560
Aykroyd mentioned going overseas for the next chapter(s).

What about Nadeem, Grooberson, Lars, Oswalt and maybe Ray going in another city to investigate while the Spenglers stay in NY? Then they all reunite for the final battle.
User avatar
By mrmichaelt
#5000562
Davideverona wrote:Aykroyd mentioned going overseas for the next chapter(s).

What about Nadeem, Grooberson, Lars, Oswalt and maybe Ray going in another city to investigate while the Spenglers stay in NY? Then they all reunite for the final battle.
I could see those happening. For the latter, It could be a series of cases in various states that baffle the police but with paranormal lens on, a team composed of PRC and GB is sent to investigate and report back, after a run-in they confirm it's an entity coming out of hibernation and feasting state to state as part of its ritual, victims left in a coma-like state including some on the team sent, and the end point is New York. A bogeyman type or Hungry Manitou type. A Pennywise that doesn't stick to one town. They have to trap the entity before its done or it goes into hibernation and the current victims die.
zeta otaku liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#5000570
Davideverona wrote: October 14th, 2024, 11:47 pm Aykroyd mentioned going overseas for the next chapter(s).

What about Nadeem, Grooberson, Lars, Oswalt and maybe Ray going in another city to investigate while the Spenglers stay in NY? Then they all reunite for the final battle.
I think splitting the action between cities works better for a multi-part TV series rather than a single Ghostbusters film... However my thoughts on leaving New York are well-documented public record by this point.
Davideverona liked this
User avatar
By mrmichaelt
#5000592
Kingpin wrote: October 15th, 2024, 3:36 am I think splitting the action between cities works better for a multi-part TV series rather than a single Ghostbusters film... However my thoughts on leaving New York are well-documented public record by this point.
I'm not talking west coast to east coast. Something more easier on production, like the New England area. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Pretty clearly as they map more the cases, realize it all culminates in New York. Like RGB did on occasion.
Davideverona liked this
User avatar
By GuyX
#5000601
Specter Mitcher wrote: October 14th, 2024, 1:01 pm
I don't recall Doogie Howser ever becoming a cultural phenomenon like Ghostbusters. It was not received well at all and was canceled, so I'm not sure how that redeems Phoebe. Neither is it apparent how a super hero flick like Spider Man does, either. Super powers from getting bit by a spider, versus a 13 year old repairing an experimental particle accelerator, surviving getting shot at by a ghost that can play machine gun, and saving the day against Gozer is....comparing apples and bowling balls.

What about Young Sheldon? Like come on man. The savant child prodigy is not a new story point. There’s a multitude of examples of this. And I think the last movie showed a ghost Egon HELPING her did it not? She didn’t CREATE the damn thing. She just fixed it. And the film shows her as knowledgeable about wiring b4 hand. Id say u have a point if it came out of nowhere but the films do the legwork with the characters.
apples and bowling balls
. Quoting Phil Leotardo is my job


No offense, but this statement is pure copium.
“copium”? U really should get ur talking points from other sources. I half expect u to bust out the tired “go woke go broke” cliche.

It seems less like u want new characters and new stories not bcuz of legit story reasons but more due to intolerance.

There’s nothing wrong with showing a character crushing on another character. U need to get past the idea of romance as “boy/girl”. That’s ur problem not the movies. Ur hang up. It’s not checking a box. U know why? Bcuz of ppl like u who get angry at it. Ur not saying anything new. & I think ur attempt to make it out as sumthing weird bcuz it’s a child/teenager is pretty transparent & disingenuous.

And maybe, *MAYBE* you’d have a point if they were making out & talking about sex but they aren’t & they don’t. It’s framed more as curiosity on Pheobe’s point. The turning into a ghost metaphor isn’t subtle.

Also let us not forget that the point is Melody betrays Phoebe. So it’s not sum token thing. There r “real” consequences to their relationship
By Davideverona
#5000853
Just saw Saturday Night and I'm in awe.

So, Jason and Gil can write a really good movie. Why Frozen Empire was a half baked product? Maybe they didn't have the same amount of creative freedom? Maybe they were forced to churn out a sequel too soon after Afterlife?

I really hope they put the same energy in the next Ghostbusters movie.
And I hope they give a Belushi biopic to the guy playing John.
BatDan liked this
User avatar
By zeta otaku
#5000857
Let's not forget Jason was also grieving the loss of his father during the filming of a sequel to a franchise his father helped make. That's... a LOT to deal with and, whether you love or hate the movie, there's no way he was over that kind of loss.
Kingpin liked this
By Davideverona
#5000861
And that's why I think they should have waited a little longer. What I'm really wondering is how much Sony interfered.

You know, we have this SNL movie that really is a gem. Top writing, great ensemble, a wonderful directorial job. And then we have a Ghostbusters movie which shows Slimer for the sake of showing Slimer in two scenes who are almost the same. We have Peter with sunglasses on for no reason. We have a large cast, half of which does basically nothing.

There is SOMETHING buried in Frozen Empire but they didn't took the time to dig deep enough.

Almost looks like the two movies were written by different set of writers
BatDan liked this
By BatDan
#5000882
Dave im totally with you on that.

I saw Saturday Night as well and its my favorite film of the year so far. It was fantastic.

And i thought to myself “where was THIS in the new GB movies??”

Seriously, the attention to character and the cynical humor in general was really missing in the last 2 movies.
By Davideverona
#5000892
What was missing in the last movies was the job side of Ghostbusting. The overload of work, taking payments, going on a routine bust and destroying grandpa living room. Think about the post Slimer Capture scenes up until the moment they hire Winston: they are dirty, tired, Janine hands them more work to do and they almost cry.

I missed the banter between the OGBs. And a montage. God knows how much we need a montage.
mrmichaelt, BatDan, Corey91 and 1 others liked this
By BatDan
#5000903
Agreed. Those elements as well—the down and dirty chaos of it all. Saturday Night captured that angle of the “Ghostbusters” tone perfectly strangely enough.

Maybe because it was a more “adult” film? So Jason and Gil were able to be more loose with it? I dunno.

I mean maybe they should try to make the next one a little more “adult” and less “family friendly” ..GB1 was targeted to adults originally anyhow.

I feel guilty critiquing so harshly because we waited so many years for new sequels; im grateful we finally got them..but, it is what it is.
User avatar
By GuyX
#5001339
Davideverona wrote: October 23rd, 2024, 4:16 pm Just saw Saturday Night and I'm in awe.

So, Jason and Gil can write a really good movie. Why Frozen Empire was a half baked product? Maybe they didn't have the same amount of creative freedom? Maybe they were forced to churn out a sequel too soon after Afterlife?

I really hope they put the same energy in the next Ghostbusters movie.
And I hope they give a Belushi biopic to the guy playing John.
It’s almost unbelievable the same team that made Saturday Night made the last two GB films. Where the hell were these guys?

And after seeing Saturday Night I can say without a shadow of a doubt that critics kinda have it out for Jason Reitman. I’m not saying he’s a great director or anything but this movie has such a great energy, some terrific moments, wonderful performances. Had the credits read “Directed by Danny Boyle” or something instead of Jason Reitman this film would be getting Oscar talk. Or a higher RT rating.

Now I will admit, and this is part of what has dogged Reitman’s last couple of films, it’s a little derivative. It’s an Aaron Sorkin film without the Sorkin.

BUT

As far as Ghostbusters is concerned

I think it comes down to what Jason Reitman had been saying most of his life. He’s the wrong kind of filmmaker for ghostbusters. It’s true.

Ghostbusters needed someone like Todd Phillips or Adam McKay, Chris Miller Phil Lord or Paul Fe—wait forget that last one.

I think Todd Phillips could’ve done Ghosrbusters right. He’s irreverent, an Ivan Reitman protege, unlike most comedic filmmakers he’s got a great sense for the visuals. You watch The Hangover and it’s a great looking movie.

Todd Phillips, Adam McKay, those other guys, I think they would’ve realized what Ghostbusters is: contemporary comedy icons busting ghosts. With a good script.
BatDan liked this
By BatDan
#5001346
Honestly. My take away after watching Saturday Night: Jason is a good pick. Just wished he put the same approach into the actual GB movies.

Take the tone, performances, and cynical adult dialogue of Saturday Night —add ghosts and proton packs and Ya got a movie thats damn near close to the “grown up” comic energy of GB1

Im scratching my head on how perfectly they captured the essence of what should go into a Ghostbusters movie..and left it out of their own Ghostbusters movies.

I still enjoy Afterlife and Frozen Empire for what they are..its a miracle we got 2 new GB sequels..but something just felt “off” Frozen Empire moreso—everything seems to be there, we got the OGs back, we got the firehouse, we got Slimer..but why am i not loving it?

Totally agree that Todd Phillips is a great runner up for GB5 (if we ever get there) ya need someone that can walk the line between good storytelling and comedy.
User avatar
By GuyX
#5001348
BatDan wrote: November 12th, 2024, 9:25 pm Honestly. My take away after watching Saturday Night: Jason is a good pick. Just wished he put the same approach into the actual GB movies.

Take the tone, performances, and cynical adult dialogue of Saturday Night —add ghosts and proton packs and Ya got a movie thats damn near close to the “grown up” comic energy of GB1

Im scratching my head on how perfectly they captured the essence of what should go into a Ghostbusters movie..and left it out of their own Ghostbusters movies.

I still enjoy Afterlife and Frozen Empire for what they are..its a miracle we got 2 new GB sequels..but something just felt “off” Frozen Empire moreso—everything seems to be there, we got the OGs back, we got the firehouse, we got Slimer..but why am i not loving it?

Totally agree that Todd Phillips is a great runner up for GB5 (if we ever get there) ya need someone that can walk the line between good storytelling and comedy.
I’m the exact same way. “I LIKE THIS. It’s fine. But…I want more and I don’t love it”.

I have this weird dichotomous relationship with these movies. I cant help but feel they’ve just made wrong move after wrong move. Audiences haven’t responded & the whole thing is now lesser for it. But yet I like afterlife.

And it always to me has to come back to the misguided choice of making this a family story. Having Egon & the Spenglers be the sort of lynchpin of the story is. I know you’ve all heard that before and it always seems to lead back to it in some way.
Ah well. No sense going over it all again.
BatDan liked this
By BatDan
#5001351
Afterlife was allowed to be sentimental for several reasons: 1) finally a GB3 , lets bask in every moment. 2) it was about Egon/Harolds legacy. It was allowed to be its own thing considering the context of the story.

Afterlife was cranked at 7-8 on the GB Scale for most of the runtime. But the movie cranks it all to 11 once Gozer, the Ogs, and Egon Ghost come in to give an amazing finale.

Youd think that momentum would carryon to the next picture and FE should have been a “back to basics” movie. But it made the false move of dialing back down and carrying over the same sentimentality of Afterlife and it ends up giving everything this weird “flatness”

Why are we staying behind at the firehouse with Pheobe? We should be out with Gary busting ghosts.
One time, Davideverona liked this
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#5001356
I really enjoyed the social media stuff Ray was doing with Podcast at the beginning, I wish they would have kept making shorts and putting them online every now and then.
BatDan, mrmichaelt liked this
User avatar
By One time
#5001361
BatDan wrote: November 13th, 2024, 5:04 am Afterlife was allowed to be sentimental for several reasons: 1) finally a GB3 , lets bask in every moment. 2) it was about Egon/Harolds legacy. It was allowed to be its own thing considering the context of the story.

Afterlife was cranked at 7-8 on the GB Scale for most of the runtime. But the movie cranks it all to 11 once Gozer, the Ogs, and Egon Ghost come in to give an amazing finale.

Youd think that momentum would carryon to the next picture and FE should have been a “back to basics” movie. But it made the false move of dialing back down and carrying over the same sentimentality of Afterlife and it ends up giving everything this weird “flatness”

Why are we staying behind at the firehouse with Pheobe? We should be out with Gary busting ghosts.
Agree with this completely. 1.5 hrs in Afterlife (until OG's show up) felt like the 30 years we had been waiting for.
The end it delivered in a way that words fail to describe how emotional it was.

But the main question: "what happened to the Ghostbusters in the past 30 years", we will never know apart from the 2 minute exposition by Ray on the phone in AF. I wanted that conversation around the table in the farmhouse after AF: "We'll have coffee inside, some of us will have rum with it". With Grooberson asking the OG's questions like a superfan and the OG's being themselves. What we had been waiting for.

How does Grooberson learn to use a proton pack? How does Callie's uneducated mom all of a sudden learn engineering and trapping ghosts?

Was Ghostbusting so simple? Was it nothing to be in awe of?,... if any (literally any, Lucky, Trevor, Podcast) child can do it? Why did we consider Venkman, Stantz, Spengler and Zeddemore heroic to start with? It was nothing to be in awe of since literal children could have done the job.

I cared about these kids and their mom, because they were the way back to the OG Ghostbusters. Now it's just a movie about the kids and their mom.
User avatar
By mrmichaelt
#5001362
One time wrote: November 13th, 2024, 5:30 pm Was Ghostbusting so simple? Was it nothing to be in awe of?,... if any (literally any, Lucky, Trevor, Podcast) child can do it? Why did we consider Venkman, Stantz, Spengler and Zeddemore heroic to start with? It was nothing to be in awe of since literal children could have done the job.

I cared about these kids and their mom, because they were the way back to the OG Ghostbusters. Now it's just a movie about the kids and their mom.
I was thinking about it and really for GB1 and GB2, Egon, Ray, and Winston were pretty static characters. Peter had a subtle character arc of growing up. That professor shocking dudes, flirting with co-eds, not really believing in the subject until he saw the Library ghost, meeting Dana, deciding to prove himself to her, then in GB2, the whole dinner talk with Dana of how being whipped into shape by the year 2000, basically becoming a dad with Oscar, cohabiting with him and Dana. Whereas with Afterlife and Frozen Empire, we got many characters with growing up story arcs - Callie was stuck, I imagine always being strapped for cash and bargaining to forgiving her father and moving on; Trevor approaching the legal adult age and wanting to be treated like one; Phoebe finding a legacy to embrace and fit in, Gary from a bachelor with a hot mess of an apartment not really caring about teaching summer school to the ultimate wish fulfillment of becoming who he idolized back when and becoming a dad. Then in FE, you also got Ray not wanting to stand on the sidelines in his golden years. You got Nadeem going from a slacker to a Firemaster. And Melody from being a double agent who just wanted to see her family again but didn't know how. I get the desire to make this feel like a living, breathing world where everyone has an arc (and giving all the actors some incentives for their art) but that formula worked for a reason in GB1 and GB2. FE was a not necessarily too many characters (look at the total cast in the first two), imo it was too many character arcs going on to put that it obfuscated the movie's main storyline.

I don't think future movies should play the build up to the villain trying to cross over or escape something and have them free at the very end anymore. Vigo was kind of that model where he was behind-the-scenes manipulating things, entrancing Janosz to do his foot work, drawing power from the slime, waiting for midnight New Year's Eve. But even he didn't show up to party until the end of the movie. Like with Garraka for example, maybe they should let him out midway and he turns NYC into his frozen empire, the GBs are forced to retreat and use the PRC as a temp HQ while the whole back half of the movie is NYC under siege and the GBs fighting their way through the ghost army (insert rematch with Sewer Dragon or bring back the Scoleri Brothers, throw in some new ghosts, just not the generic wisp forms) to get back to the Firehouse and that final battle we saw takes place and they use the ECU to trap him. Basically any of the RGB Halloween movies come to think of it, lol. But again, that's a bigger budget that I don't know if Sony would have been willing to give so were Jason and Gil constrained with how to go about this one? Shrug.
BatDan, Kingpin liked this
User avatar
By One time
#5001364
mrmichaelt wrote: November 13th, 2024, 8:20 pm
I was thinking about it and really for GB1 and GB2, Egon, Ray, and Winston were pretty static characters. Peter had a subtle character arc of growing up. That professor shocking dudes, flirting with co-eds, not really believing in the subject until he saw the Library ghost, meeting Dana, deciding to prove himself to her, then in GB2, the whole dinner talk with Dana of how being whipped into shape by the year 2000, basically becoming a dad with Oscar, cohabiting with him and Dana. Whereas with Afterlife and Frozen Empire, we got many characters with growing up story arcs - Callie was stuck, I imagine always being strapped for cash and bargaining to forgiving her father and moving on; Trevor approaching the legal adult age and wanting to be treated like one; Phoebe finding a legacy to embrace and fit in, Gary from a bachelor with a hot mess of an apartment not really caring about teaching summer school to the ultimate wish fulfillment of becoming who he idolized back when and becoming a dad. Then in FE, you also got Ray not wanting to stand on the sidelines in his golden years. You got Nadeem going from a slacker to a Firemaster. And Melody from being a double agent who just wanted to see her family again but didn't know how. I get the desire to make this feel like a living, breathing world where everyone has an arc (and giving all the actors some incentives for their art) but that formula worked for a reason in GB1 and GB2. FE was a not necessarily too many characters (look at the total cast in the first two), imo it was too many character arcs going on to put that it obfuscated the movie's main storyline.
I agree on your point about character arcs being more elaborate in AF and FE. But I make a distinction between skillsets and character arcs. I’d go further to say that GB1 showed that skillsets supersede character arcs. We didn’t need character arcs for Peter, Ray, Winston and Egon to make GB1 the best movie in the franchise.

GB1 showed that the OG’s were genius level scientists with multiple PhD’s ranging from parapsychology to theoretical physics.
That meant that all the situations they got into, we felt their underlying/offscreen extreme skillset (Egons intellect, Venkmans PhD level knowledge of psychological states, Ray’s engineering skills). Winston was a special forces Green Beret who they trained. All highly skilled people. The opposite of children and untrained moms.

This unsung skillset was 90% of side B. of the two way thematic mirror in GB1. (A. comedy/absurdity/scares, B. Serious tone/low camera angles/grittyness/no one smiles or laughs). That juxtaposition is one of the reasons the movie is so successful. Not character arcs.

Ask yourself this. What was the point of some of the character arcs in AF / FE? That Trevor has a crush on Lucky? The fact that Trevor yells out “Lucky!” when she’s possessed? Or that Trevor wants to be an adult and drive? That Callie throws him the keys of the Ecto at the end of FE? Personally I think 90% of the character arcs in FE feel hamfisted in as filler. AF and FE imo would be better movies if Trevor and Lucky did not exist. Phoebe=Egon, Podcast=Ray, Callie/Grooberson=Venkman, Grooberson=Us fans. There was no need for Trevor and Lucky. I believe they just added Trevor to get audiences in after Stranger Things.

The only character arcs in the entire franchise I loved was Phoebe learning who she was and Callie understanding Egon and forgiving him. Because they both directly related to Egon.

All the other stuff like teen angst, stepdad dreams, rebelling against your parents, teen crushes, parenting headaches, etc. I couldn’t care less about. I’m not interested in a teen drama with a Ghostbusters spice sprinkled over it.

Like Harold Ramis said; Ghostbusters is about the fact that our human condition (death) can be unburdened if we face it with pragmatism (Winston), intelligence (Egon), positivity (Ray) and wit (Venkman).
User avatar
By mrmichaelt
#5001367
One time wrote: I agree on your point about character arcs being more elaborate in AF and FE. But I make a distinction between skillsets and character arcs. I’d go further to say that GB1 showed that skillsets supersede character arcs. We didn’t need character arcs for Peter, Ray, Winston and Egon to make GB1 the best movie in the franchise.

GB1 showed that the OG’s were genius level scientists with multiple PhD’s ranging from parapsychology to theoretical physics.
That meant that all the situations they got into, we felt their underlying/offscreen extreme skillset (Egons intellect, Venkmans PhD level knowledge of psychological states, Ray’s engineering skills). Winston was a special forces Green Beret who they trained. All highly skilled people. The opposite of children and untrained moms.

This unsung skillset was 90% of side B. of the two way thematic mirror in GB1. (A. comedy/absurdity/scares, B. Serious tone/low camera angles/grittyness/no one smiles or laughs). That juxtaposition is one of the reasons the movie is so successful. Not character arcs.

Ask yourself this. What was the point of some of the character arcs in AF / FE? That Trevor has a crush on Lucky? The fact that Trevor yells out “Lucky!” when she’s possessed? Or that Trevor wants to be an adult and drive? That Callie throws him the keys of the Ecto at the end of FE? Personally I think 90% of the character arcs in FE feel hamfisted in as filler. AF and FE imo would be better movies if Trevor and Lucky did not exist. Phoebe=Egon, Podcast=Ray, Callie/Grooberson=Venkman, Grooberson=Us fans. There was no need for Trevor and Lucky. I believe they just added Trevor to get audiences in after Stranger Things.

The only character arcs in the entire franchise I loved was Phoebe learning who she was and Callie understanding Egon and forgiving him. Because they both directly related to Egon.

All the other stuff like teen angst, stepdad dreams, rebelling against your parents, teen crushes, parenting headaches, etc. I couldn’t care less about. I’m not interested in a teen drama with a Ghostbusters spice sprinkled over it.

Like Harold Ramis said; Ghostbusters is about the fact that our human condition (death) can be unburdened if we face it with pragmatism (Winston), intelligence (Egon), positivity (Ray) and wit (Venkman).
Well, Trevor and Lucky need more time and spotlight. Trevor to me was there to show the other side of the coin. Phoebe was all in when she learned Egon was her grandfather, went all in into ghostbusting. Trevor not so much. From AL, he just in a rush to be an adult: wanted to work on cars, lied to the girl he was into about his age but ultimately was pulled into ghostbusting. It was subtle but him and Nadeem had a brief meeting of minds in his apartment - both didn't want to go the normal route in life like their relatives - Nadeem mentioning his brother or cousin being an engineer I think and they just wanted to coast and make it up as they went along. Lucky was another facet of the legacy theme, she didn't want to end up living in Summerville her whole life like her parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents and as fate would have it, meeting the Spenglers allowed her to get out. But now she's in a very good position. An engineering intern learning the in's and out's of ghostbusting tech.

I get the critique with the new team nowhere as qualified as the founding team. But Answer The Call tried that formula and they were trying to do a team with similar collegiate backgrounds in all the unmade GB3 drafts for years, it seems they have shifted to more "anyone can be Ghostbusters" than "only psychologists and engineers with degrees and resumes".

I agree with what you're saying about juxtaposition.

And luckily, teen angst and parenting won't be an issue for the next one given the passage of time.
User avatar
By One time
#5001370
I agree with you as well about all the finer points within the relationships you mention adding a dimension to the movie and making it more interesting. Nadeem and Trevors conversations etc.

I’m all for that if there’s a GB movie underneath, and for me personally there wasn’t enough OGB banter, jokes, passing the torch, etc.

It was too much of one and not enough of the other, for me. The whole thing would have worked better as a series than as a single movie.

Frankly, in my opinion, a series would be a better future for the franchise than another movie. A series could even “go back in time” to before FE, or even slightly before AF, as flashbacks to show what happened. Then flesh out all the character arcs, etc. over various episodes.

Instead of just one next movie that aims to fix all the complaints people had about FE and also add new stuff.

But I doubt they’d be able to get Aykroyd, Murray and Hudson to agree to a series role.
Molding My First Pack

Been a while since my last update, but progress is[…]

Ed’s 84 Pack Build

Emitter exchange complete! I received the angled […]

The Blitzway figures are so good though. They ar[…]

Proton Props UK

Thanks for your input. The trouble is - people l[…]