Didn't even know this was in the works tbh, and it looks a bit "meh" but at least Bill Murray is in it.
Film Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire
- Thread starter Big Andy
- Start date
CGI looks a little ropey, and it's a shame to hear that Weaver and Moranis aren't involved, but I will never not be excited by a new OG Ghostbusters movie.
Looks ok. I thought Afterlife was decent enough and a good nod to the original 2 but this definitely has more of the original aesthetic. Tbf some aspects of the first 2 (particularly 1) haven’t aged well but it’s still a classic series. I’m planning to watch some of them again with my kids over the next few weeks so hopefully we’ll all be excited in time for March when the new one is out.
I've got a lot of time for ghostbusters. Theyl never replicate the nostalgia but they make a decent effort with this new franchise.
Like the bits when Murray's character is hitting on the college girl and when Aykroyd's gets sucked off by a ghost for no reason? The latter I do not remember seeing back when I first watched it, but it is a hard one (no pun intended) to explain to confused kids watching for the first time.
Tbh I’ve never been a massive fan of the original(It’s a odd right wing dumb guy movie)but it did have a certain vibe. These remakes/reboots look like they’ve been made by an AI.
It’s seems to be mashing together elements from the last decade of blockbusters - knock off Hans Zimmer score, drained any use of colour, marvel did he really just say that script, life laugh love life lessons and the predictable grey monster villain.
I’m sure it will 10 billion at the box office.
It’s seems to be mashing together elements from the last decade of blockbusters - knock off Hans Zimmer score, drained any use of colour, marvel did he really just say that script, life laugh love life lessons and the predictable grey monster villain.
I’m sure it will 10 billion at the box office.
Yep definitely. Also some of Bill Murray's character's pursuit of Sigourney Weaver's character doesn't fly these days. He's quite sleazy in general. I think a lot of 80s films feel very non-PC and sometimes that can be kinda refreshing but, in this case, I found some bits really cringeworthy. Still enjoyed the originals overall though. Especially Vigo in the second film - still very creepy.
Yeah, loads of the stuff I watched and enjoyed as a kid I will rewatch and still enjoy for the most part, but there's so much of it that has male characters acting like pervy creeps, it's really disconcerting in retrospect! I tried to watch There's Something About Mary recently and, christ, that thing has aged terribly!
I enjoyed Charlie Day's explanation of the Ghostbusters BJ scene, however:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Who'd have thought he'd end up plying his trade in the prem and breaking the goal scoring record.
One can only hope that they wheel back in middle-aged Bobby Brown to re-release this absolute jam from Ghostbusters II.
Found out about Vigo, the master of evil,
Tryin' to battle my boys? that's not legal
Felt the same when rewatching Porky's.
I liked Afterlife so I'll definitely watch this. Like you say though, the CGI looks proper shite. I'm also sick and tired of digital film and how cheap it looks. It's the MP3 of the visual world.
Who you gonna call....
That was pretty fecking creepy even at the time and I was a hormone filled teenager then.
Looks fun enough. The ice CGI looks a bit dodgy though.
I'm REALLY hoping it doesn't stand for Original Gangsta
OG = original, i.e. not rebooted.
You did mean Original Gangsta. Please don't do that again Dawg. You feel me blud?
Yeah it was a bizarre movie. Film of its time? I'm not even sure of that.
James Acaster has been cast as an 'Egon Spengler-type'.
https://www.empireonline.com/movies...e-james-acaster-egon-spengler-type-exclusive/
Was it creepy? Must be over 30 years since I've seen it. I guess the spying on the girls in the shower scene was voyeurism in hindsight.
Ghostbusters is the perfect example of something that doesn't need to be a franchise and really doesn't work as a franchise.
In its initial iteration it made sense. A perfect example of something that didn't need to be a franchise is The Fast and the Furious.
I suppose Ghostbusters II, although a bit of a misfire, was quite child-friendly and The Real Ghostbusters cartoon series spun out quite a successful toy line. However, I just don't think the iconography and nostalgia of a quite crass 1984 comedy meshes with this huge, high-stakes, emotional Marvel-style saga.
Both the Ghostbusters reboots feel like films which people who typically liked the original wouldn't enjoy. It's gone from jokes about ghosts giving blowjobs and Bill Murray confirming William Atherton's lack of penis to a sub-Speilberg, possibly even sub-Trevorrow children's adventure. Say what you will about the first reboot, and let's be clear, it was dreadful, but there was at least that Saturday Night Live lineage.
It's probably true of F&F, I've yet to see one, but I gather they went from stealing DVD players to saving the world with flying cars in the space of ten movies. I do intend to give them a go eventually.
I like how 21 Jump Street made fun of this at the end of 22 Jump Street.
The latest movie was watchable and a nice homage to Harold Ramis; the reboot was a cringeworthy wreck (true to form for modern day SNL). I'm not holding out too much hope for the new one based on the trailer, but the NYC setting should be an improvement at least.
Pretty much
1, 4, 5 and 6 are the highlights, with 5 being the point when things start getting a little crazy.
Hasn't society evolved enough over the past 30 years not to kink shame like this
The reboot with the women ghostbusters was awful, and then the other reboot with the children on the farm was also not on.
Sceptical of this. If the original or sequel came out today it would be considered rubbish and also outrageously sexist/kind of rapey. It worked then because then was 40 years ago.
Leave the 1980s in the 1980s. Or at least just use the franchise to make a good modern day ghost film rather than homage back to the original which is basically impossible to do without making a very bad film.
Phrases like "Egon Spengler-type" don't fill me with confidence.
Sceptical of this. If the original or sequel came out today it would be considered rubbish and also outrageously sexist/kind of rapey. It worked then because then was 40 years ago.
Leave the 1980s in the 1980s. Or at least just use the franchise to make a good modern day ghost film rather than homage back to the original which is basically impossible to do without making a very bad film.
Phrases like "Egon Spengler-type" don't fill me with confidence.
“James is not playing a Spengler, but he really falls in line with the Egon Spengler ‘type’,” laughs Reitman.
It's a throwaway line from an Empire interview with the director.
And I'm not sure your comment about the originals not being enjoyed today holds any water either given they're both constantly on mainstream TV. Maybe you should start a petition.
The recent one with ant man was decent. The one before that tried too hard but I think it could have been better as the cast wasn't bad choices.
I found the Harold Ramis tribute a bit creepy. It felt like the emotion was driven by the real-life death of Ramis and not something that filmed had earned for the character of Egon, as I say, I find it hard to believe these films are at all related other than by iconography and cameos. I'm less concerned about resurrecting dead actors with CG than some are, but it felt very weird to me to have the audience mourn a real-life death using the much younger appearance of an actor we'd seen grow much older in real life.The latest movie was watchable and a nice homage to Harold Ramis; the reboot was a cringeworthy wreck (true to form for modern day SNL). I'm not holding out too much hope for the new one based on the trailer, but the NYC setting should be an improvement at least.
Pretty much
1, 4, 5 and 6 are the highlights, with 5 being the point when things start getting a little crazy.
But, whatever, I'm not offended by these films' existence. They are the very definition of 'okay' and I wouldn't have given them a second thought if it weren't for the fact I need to get some work done and keep putting it off.
The important thing is that we all understand that no matter how bad these sequels and remakes suck, the original is just as bad.
Perfect end credits.
Then you might want to avoid Fast and the Furious 7.
I think I may be the only one who quite liked the 2016 reboot. It wasn't great, but as a goofy 90 minute glorified SNL sketch, it was alright. Chris Hemsworth playing a ditzy secretary made weird dudebros really mad for some reason, and that's always a good outcome. I certainly preferred it to the Afterlife one.
But on the whole, they didn't really need to make any more Ghostbusters stuff after the first two films and the cartoon. Though I guess that's the model for the film industry isn't it. If people like a film, then they have to make it again, and then again and again but with Paul Rudd.
But on the whole, they didn't really need to make any more Ghostbusters stuff after the first two films and the cartoon. Though I guess that's the model for the film industry isn't it. If people like a film, then they have to make it again, and then again and again but with Paul Rudd.
Also, if they insist on a Ghostbusters reboot or expansion of the “universe”, why don’t they just use Aykroyd’s original pitch? Ghostbusters was supposed to be serious and about the occult. They could have a whole new spin on ghost blowjobs, because these would be gritty, serious blow jobs.
I didn't say they weren't enjoyable today I said they'd be considered rubbish if they were released as a new film today, which is completely different to a 40 year old film which still retains its charm.
Also they aren't constantly on TV at all, but ok.
Must every part of this forum be taken over by people who want to be a condescending arse over nothing?
I loved the original 2, hated the Girlbusters film because it was shite, and found Afterlife "watchable" but only because of member berries and Bill Murray. Ghostbusters should first and foremost be about, well, ghosts, rather than some fecking ice thing, and it certainly shouldn't be a bunch of teenage kids and Paul Rudd.
They should've done Ghostbusters 3 back in the 90's with the original cast and then Back to the Future'd it and just call it quits there.
They should've done Ghostbusters 3 back in the 90's with the original cast and then Back to the Future'd it and just call it quits there.