The new actor is age-appropriate to be Oscar, which is what some people are speculating.
News Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire anticipation thread
- Thread starter The Nth Doctor
- Start date
The new actor is age-appropriate to be Oscar, which is what some people are speculating.
I wondered about that, but at a glance he seemed too young (Oscar should be in his early 30's, right?) and I didn't bother to look up the actor, let alone his age.
I'm a little torn if it is the case, because on the one hand: yay! But on the other I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Sigourney isn't in this one at all, which seems unfortunate.
Last edited:
I believe Oscar is in his late 30's, so I don't think it is him
Assuming the new movie's set in Summer 2024, Oscar should be 35 (born early 1989, Ghostbusters II in December that year). James Acaster's 38, so it fits assuming he loses the British accent. He looks like he could be related to Timothy Carhart, who played Andre 'The Stiff' Wallance in the first movie (generally assumed to be Oscar's biological father).
A closeup of the nametag says no. ‘Winfield,’ maybe.
Fine, call it shameless nostalgia bait. It's the same thing: Jingle keys in front of an infant and they'll giggle like it's the coolest thing they've ever seen. Have Michael Keaton say "let's get nuts" in a trailer for The Flash, and people shrieked like it was the coolest thing they'd ever seen (even though the line makes no sense in context). Afterlife was two hours of jingling the keys.
I'll watch it and enjoy it, but not waiting with anticipation, afterlife took me a while to watch it and enjoyed it but will never revisit it. To be fair i enjoyed 2016 too.
Yup, that was Afterlife alright. Nothing but back-to-back references and meaningless CG nonsense! No setting the story in an entirely new location. No new characters with their own motivations and stories. No new and radically different visual style that evokes more of a classic Spielbergian Americana style than the scrappy guerrilla feel of the original. No designing the story from the ground up as a family story instead of stumbling sideways into it while planning a madcap comedy. No sensitive and heartfelt send-off for a beloved character and the actor that played him from a Director that actually knew the man since childhood. What a waste. Should have just plucked a random script from the genre pitch-pile and slapped the Ghostbusters name on it with a lazy rewrite just so they could sell more funko-pops.
I don't know what Hollywood is thinking frankly. Obviously people that show up to a franchise film want don't want a movie that feels meaningfully connected to previous instalments, featuring characters and icons they know and love. They want something totally original and different, unconnected with what they enjoyed about the IP,
The next thing you'll be seeing sandwich shop owners expecting their customers to show up actually wanting bread with their purchase or something! Madness!
Seriously though; if you detest the concept so much on general principle; maybe try NOT bothering with such films, or even franchises in general, and instead go watch something you'll actually enjoy? Call me crazy, but I have this weird personality tick where I don't expend energy on things that don't interest me, let alone things that actively repulse me.
Side note: Did you seriously just equate a light and fun family romp like 'GB: Afterlife' to the train-wreck-by-committee that was the damn Flash movie? That's some seriously weapons grade hyperbole and false equivalence my friend!
Exactly, the whole point of making something part of a franchise is actually acknowledging that the thing is part of the franchise. And I can see where a movie that is reviving an old franchise is especially going to want to include a lot of references and callbacks. I thought Afterlife did good of giving us enough new stuff that it wasn't totally overwhelmed by the references and callbacks.
And I really don't see where Michael Keaton saying that one line in The Flash was really so horrible, it just happened that once, and once he said it they moved on.
And I really don't see where Michael Keaton saying that one line in The Flash was really so horrible, it just happened that once, and once he said it they moved on.
I like the keys jingling
Some of us live in hope that the things we used to like can still be good or be good again.
And both of ya lay off 'The Flash'. The film is way way more original and entertaining than Afterlife. It doesn't throw legacy characters under a bus nor use exact same plot devices to defeat same villain from almost 40 years previously.
I don't even remember a trailer where he said the line, but it's not like I have any reason to be certain that I saw all existing trailers. The trailer I saw had the "I'm Batman" line.
In the case of The Flash it's more like the opposite. The film does not permit its protagonists to defeat a villain previously defeated 10 years ago, despite the fact that the tools to do so are right in front of them and not exactly hidden!
Last edited:
I enjoyed Afterlife a lot, way more then I expected to. The trailer for the new movie looks even better (hopefully we won't have weird marshmellow comedy relief shoe horned into this movie). I hope they take the weather thing to full disaster movie levels, it looks like it could be a fun addition to a Ghostbusters scenario.
As for The Flash, I thought that it was fine for what it was. Michael Keaton was great, and the Supergirl was good enough that I'd have liked to see her keep the role. But it was nowhere near as good as Afterlife, which to me is a legitimately good movie and an interesting direction to take the Ghostbusters concept.
As for The Flash, I thought that it was fine for what it was. Michael Keaton was great, and the Supergirl was good enough that I'd have liked to see her keep the role. But it was nowhere near as good as Afterlife, which to me is a legitimately good movie and an interesting direction to take the Ghostbusters concept.
The 80's cartoon played a huge influence on "Frozen Empire"
https://twitter.com/kumailn/status/1722639314340003990?s=20
https://twitter.com/kumailn/status/1722639314340003990?s=20
There's really no need to choose between Afterlife and Flash. Look, let's just say that they both had surprisingly emotional scenes in the closing minutes and leave it at that.
Yeah, the Clooney jump scare at the end of The Flash was very distressing, emotionally speaking
but it didn't, at all. In 84 they crossed the streams at the door to suck Gozer back into the other dimension. in Afterlife they were away from the doorway, and of course crossing the streams had no effect on Gozer directly. So they sucked Gozer into multiple traps, actually trapping it rather than just making it go home temporarily.
New things being shite doesn't make the old things shite too. I'll never understand this attitude. The old stuff is still there. Nobody took anything away. Franchise quality is not a zero sum game.
I think my credentials as a Trek fan are pretty firmly established, but I've never hesitated to dip out when a new show or movie doesn't do it for me. Indeed, it happened three times in the last two decades; with most of the final few seasons of Voyager (got bored), and the penultimate season of Enterprise (lost interest in the hyper militancy and mean spiritedness of the whole Spheres thing), and again with 'Into Darkness' which I could barely stay away though and honestly can hardly remember anything with clarity. Didn't do it for me. Oh well!
But do I whine and whinge on about how the new version isn't the same as the old, or that I don't like this or that? Not really. I just move on, continue to revisit the things I liked, and wait to see if the next take is any good. Life's too short to fixate on such things.
As for Ghostbusters; I have a huge soft spot for the animated shows (mostly the original since that was my favourite thing as a child, but the 90's show had it's moments too.) I enjoyed the 2008 video game which yes, was unabashedly dripping with nostalgia and that was the whole point. The 2016 movie was mostly terrible (though I'd love to see Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon as Patty & Holtzmann again in these new movies!) But so what? The fact that I loved what came next and that it being so closely tied to the originals is probably a direct result of that movie's failure, so for that alone I'm glad it exists. So by and large, the franchise is in pretty good shape (and I've never even really touched the comics, which I gather have been fairly popular with those that follow such things.)
And since I did enjoy 'Afterlife' for what it was, and this movie seems to be mostly the same team, then I'm onboard to see what they want to do with the IP next.
My defending this point would require me to care that this movie exists. I do not. Indeed until that post, I hadn't spared it a single thought since it was featured in a corridor crew video a few weeks back, and before that, not since the credits rolled.
If you enjoyed it; great! Good for you! Have fun by all means!
Not at all surprised. That whole bit of the . . . whatever that was coming through the firehouse doors positively screamed tRGB to me.
I watched a few episodes a while back, and I really enjoyed them, so this sounds like a good thing to me.