There seems to be a narrative coalescing that Frozen Empire focused too much on the OGs, when in reality Murray, Hudson and Potts had maybe 15 lines of dialogue between them in the entire movie. Aykroyd had a decent sized role and I was happy to see it. But critics are outright demanding that the OGs be removed from this series completely, and I’m concerned Sony will listen to them. As the title says, what the hell is going on? Do critics have a secret Discord or something where they craft bullshit narratives about movies that have no basis in reality? I’ve seen them do this with other series, so I guess it was only a matter of time until they turned their wrath on Ghostbusters.
Yeah I was really hoping for an end-credit scene with Kumail and Rick Moranis wearing the colanders, while Murray is testing them.
Would have been better than the one we got.
I was hoping for a post-credits scene with Dana since we got the really funny one with her last time, and she was missed in the film. Instead we got more mini-pufts which is goofy, but really makes me wonder how they're seemingly everywhere all the time. I was almost hoping that Podcast would've learned to control them somehow since they've persisted and seem to revolve around him.
In college I wrote out a Ghostbusters 3 that featured a college aged Oscar denouncing the Ghostbusters and becoming a frat boy shithead and doesn’t believe in ghosts until his party is ruined by some entity. Could rework it to make him a finance bro shithead…
And the reason he's like that is because of some lingering influence from Vigo.
Yup! I had it written that Dana had passed and he had a crap relationship with Venkman, but grows to appreciate him as he fights ghosts. In the last act against the big bad, he ends up having to fight the remnants of Vigo. I need to find what I wrote.
At this point, he would be a 30 year old man.
He’d be 35 or so. And finance bros don’t grow up fast
It's because most critics are failed clown political activists. To them there's probably too many straight white males in the 3 OG's (even though Winston is also a beloved OG) so they must be removed!
It's why there is such a disconnect between audience scores and critic scores on rotten tomatoes.
Where were you on Jan 6?
What in tarnation does that have to do with movie critics!?
I know, I know. Don't feed the trolls. But I'm genuinely curious what this guy's on about.
In Australia, but 10/10 for the stretch. Liking the OG Ghostbusters makes you a Jan 6th insurrectionist!
Bud you’re the one screeching about the feminist Illuminati not liking a ghostbusters movie lol
You mean not liking the OG's in a Ghostbusters movie. What kind of moron do you have to be to hate on the OG's that EVERYBODY loves?!
Rightoids believe the dumbest shit.
Lmao
It's just people moaning.
They're sad and angry and want to make everything worse for others rather than get therapy.
I think it's more people are getting sick of legacy sequels , nostalgia driven films, etc... after so long that this became caught in the crossfire and wrongfully hated for it.
I loved the film, and afterlife was much, much worse for that as the film got derailed to just do the end of movie 1 again.
I think that's it or my thought anyway as more and more late sequels are met with "really?" Now instead of "Oh wow that's great that's back."
Nah, the criticism for being nostalgic is almost SOLELY limited to Ghostbusters. They still loved Top Gun: Maverick, a very recent film, they loved The Mandalorian, they loved The Batman, they loved Dune 2, and I would guess they're going to love Beetlejuice 2. They had to come up with a fake criticism for Afterlife to punish people for opposing GB2016, and that seemed like the easiest one, considering how well-made and likable the movie was. Criticizing it for "nostalgia" can be done no matter how good or bad the movie is, because it has NOTHING to do with whether the movie is good or bad.
Lmao at the idea of some sort cultural bias against fucking Ghostbusters. I liked FE despite the fact that it’s a very flawed movie. Afterlife was WAY to nostalgic and I personally did not enjoy it because of it. The OG’s were one of the weakest parts of the new movie and it would have been greatly improved if it actually focused on developing the newer characters IMHO
Beetlejuice 2 has had negativity it's only just started happening more I felt
I didn’t like the first Beetlejuice but I didn’t think this teaser looked bad. 🤷🏻♂️Anyway, I don’t think it will get criticized for nostalgia by the critics when it comes out.
This criticism is solely limited to Ghostbusters. And anyone sane knows exactly why.
LMAO
OK, then why?
Most of the "critics" display a very consistent pattern where if you check their reviews, they criticize and shit on Afterlife and FE for "nostalgia pandering" and being too focused on the old cast, but if you ever check their reviews for the 2016 film, they give it glowing praise for getting rid of the old "outdated" cast to make way for the all female-casting. One review for FE in particular gave it around a 1/5, but gave 2016 a massively higher review just as an example. They don't even discuss the actual qualities of the films, but base their entire 'reviews' on bias against the franchise because GB2016 failed.
There are probably some amidst the reviews who you can say simply just dislike the franchise period, but the vast majority are panning it because it is not GB2016.
But afterlife is 20%+ higher than frozen empire
Is the fanbase really trying to blame everything on 2016 still just because obvious reasons?
And Afterlife also got a lot of the same bullshit reviews as Frozen Empire. And if you're really going the "it has a slightly higher percentage", then 2016 got 74% from critics.
Yes, but saying the same, I'm arguing it can't be if nearly a quarter more hate. But "2016 bad"
I'd agree if that's what they were doing, but they're not.
They moaned the OG's weren't in Afterlife enough, they moan the OG's are in FE too much, they moan about "woke", and constantly ask questions that are answered in the film they claim to have watched like Cinemasins gave them a special hat.
If they're sick of Legacy sequels they can just not go see them, but they won't ever do that because they've nothing else.
That's fair. I'm just seeing a trend but I might be off as you said
Oh it is a trend, the sad and angry people don't have unique ideas, they're not able to do that.
Like I said its a great film loved this one.
But I'm seeing more people turn on them. Like I said Beetlejuice 2 is getting hate and looks fine.
I loved this film I just feel the bubbles bursting on nostalgic legacy sequels. But I might be wrong 100%
No one called Spiderman No Way Home a nostalgia driven film and it was just that. I honestly think it's an overly used word. Something that started to become a thing in recent times. When you accuse a film, game or whatever of being "nostalgic" then you are saying that you want a film based on the franchise, lore, story, etc but you don't want a film related to it at all. It doesn't make any sense.
I’ve realized that a lot of them are calling the original characters simply appearing in the film “nostalgia baiting” even though they’re doing new things.
Murray felt very out of place in this film. Winston makes sense. Ray works better if you remove Patton's scenes and give them to him. I do think this film makes it unclear is this about the Spanger's and Gary taking over the mantle or is it about everyone being a Ghostbuster now. There's no real clear delineation as to who works for who.
Yeah, agreed. If it was just the interview scene, I think it would have been fine, but it felt forced having him be a last minute recruit at the end. He looks too old to be of use to the team and he didn't have that strong draw to the occult that Ray or Egon had
There's so many people in the end it felt like they really should have trimmed the fat to let the new team standout more. Every one ends up in that firehouse which just doesn't make sense outside of production issues.
That's interesting. I thought Peter interviewing the Fire Master made sense and was funny as hell.
As for who is or isn't a Ghostbuster, Winston started a franchise. It isn't limited to a single team anymore, and the OG's are still involved. I was glad to see they weren't just written out to make way for the new young crew as most film franchises do. Peter, Ray, Winston and Janine saw a lot and have a lot to contribute. Why wouldn't they help?
I don’t get the bitching with the film. It was fun as hell.
Yes, journalists across the media DO have secret chat groups where they coordinate their messaging. This was exposed on a Google Group in 2010 called JournoList. They are no doubt continuing to do that on more high-tech mobile-based platforms now. The 2016 debacle turned this franchise into a political issue for the media, so it's something the major publications are very focused on when it comes to messaging.
The template for one kind of discussion they have is this, as quoted in the Wikipedia article: "[journalist] of [publication] was requesting ideas from other journalists for best ways to criticize [person they don't like] in an email thread."
The goal they had in 2021 was clearly to figure out how to come up with credible criticism for the post-2016 GB movies. With Afterlife, they settled on, "It's too nostalgic! It panders to the fans!" Which makes no sense, when countless critics praised Spider-Man: No Way Home, Top Gun: Maverick and Star Wars: The Force Awakens for being "sweetly nostalgic" and such. But it got the job done, and became a meme criticism that got constantly repeated across the media and the internet. Journalists, just like advertisers, know extremely well that they have to bombard the SAME message over and over repeatedly in order to make it stick.
This is the correct answer
Ask your parents about the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and get ready for crickets.
You’re pretending like there aren’t plenty of hardcore GB fans who are voicing serious complaints with the movie. I liked it, but many didn’t, and tbh I see the flaws even if they don’t bother me as much.
This “they’re all against us because they have private chats amongst their colleagues!” is just conspiracy theory nonsense. ESPECIALLY when it pertains to movie reviews.
Zeitgeist and consensus don’t necessarily mean collusion.
I am an OG fan and was disappointed in this movie. But the OG ghostbusters I'm this movie were awesome. We needed more bill Murray though!
Murray was barely in character.
User deleted comment
2mo
Yup. And it's all projection. There is literally nobody on Earth that thinks more about GB 2016 than some of the people on this sub. The idea that "mainstream movie critics" are in cahoots, and waging a coordinated culture war on GB fans is just lunacy.
And it's all cope. Because let's be honest, both here and on GB groups across the internet from FB to Twitter, there are plenty of vocal hardcore fans that are disappointed with the movie. From people unhappy with the Melody storyline, to people upset about there being so many apparent deleted scenes. It's a pretty divisive movie across the board, and the idea that reviewers have "chosen a narrative" and are driving the negativity, when there's that level of critical minutiae going on in the GB community itself? It's ridiculous.
I think there’s 15-20 points taken off of both Afterlife and FE on RT due to the conspiracy. Marvel movies that are worse than these get higher scores.
Or hear me out. They’re both very imperfect movies that aren’t necessarily going to please a majority of people.
I enjoy them both. But I’m not going to pretend they’re not both deeply flawed in some ways, and aren’t aimed pretty squarely at hardcore fans of the franchise.
Those Marvel movies you mention, you may personally like less, but chances are they’re ones that are speaking to a broader audience, and often times are origin stories. Not to mention releasing during the high times of the franchise being popular can help scores. People (even reviewers) can get swept up in zeitgeist, for better or worse.
Personally liking a movie with a 45% on RT is OK. No conspiracy needed.
It's not a conspiracy, but a lot of bad reviews are younger reviewers still angry about 2016. They dug in then, and still are defending the women. The women were great. The movie was terrible. The nerds dug in and cried about their childhoods being ruined somehow, and the right wing manosphere jumped in and exploited it all and got really gross about it.
Add to that, generational tension is growing between Gen Z and Gen X,. Gen Z is pushing back on Gen X nostalgi, and Bill has been called out for being a creep.
Finally, half the reviewers are glorified bloggers. Check out Twitter for some hard-coree feminist bitching about Bill Murray, the ghost blow job, and 20 somethings denying that the original movie was anything more than an SNL sketch.
There are some obvious flaws in the movie, but overall it was fun and well done. Jamband fans and GB fans share the same weird hate for the thing they love.
I’m talking about the specific totally false narrative that’s becoming the narrative about this movie on social media, driven by critics. And that is “the original characters are in it too much and, in fact, shouldn’t be in these movies at all anymore.” It’s totally non-organic. A Discord where they cook this stuff up makes perfect sense.
Uh yeah. No.
You can disagree with that opinion as you see fit. That’s an entirely subjective thing.
But unless you’ve got actual factual receipts. “The film media has a secret Discord where they cook up anti-Ghostbusters rhetoric” doesn’t “make sense”. It’s delusional.
99% of the people reviewing this on Rotten Tomatoes likely reviewed this movie, and went back to thinking about Ghostbusters the amount they usually do. Which is zero.
JediJones up there is out of his gourd with the “in 2021 they figured out their post-2016 rhetoric”. It’s genuinely delusional to think these people care about spinning a narrative about Ghostbusters to this level. It’s tinfoil hat time. And you know what? It’s the kind of thing that genuinely gives Ghostbusters fans a bad name.
How is it delusional when it’s been proven that they do this. Fuck off with online contrarian act.
It has not in any way been "proven" they do this. Reviewers and critics having online chats and DMs amongst their peers is NOT evidence of some industry wide conspiracy against Ghostbusters.
Its not "online contrarianism", its rationality, and not looking for boogeymen where there aren't any.
Franchise movies get mixed reviews all the time. Sometimes it is what it is.
That is insane. A lot of these guys are openly buddy-buddy on Twitter, so it’s not surprising that’s what’s going on behind closed doors. In a post Rotten Tomatoes world, the majority of critics seem to want to speak in one voice. They really are trying to steer Hollywood. And the reason for it is many of them are failed filmmakers themselves. So they take it out on the successful filmmakers they don’t deem worthy.
Wait, what?! People in the same industry are friendly with each-other ?! That....is....SHOCKING to me!
A bunch of people in the same industry talking shop and being friendly with each-other is NOT evidence of collusion against a specific franchise. Its entirely possible that culturally, they're all (or at least 55% of them) are on the same page, and of a similar mind. But the idea that they're nefariously "trying to steer Hollywood" any more than "offering their opinion" does is delusional bullshit.
I'm telling you right now. You want to make Ghostbusters fans look like a bunch of whiny, conspiracy theory guzzling babies? Keep up the self-persecution bud.
I don't think I've seen the complaint anywhere that they are in it too much. I see the complaint that they are in it just to be in it, and that is a correct take. Dan got a storyline (one that was never completed in the movie but I digress) Bill, Ernie and Annie were just there to be there. They could have not been in it and the plot wouldn't have changed.
If you want to include the OG's into the story, give them something to do and give them a meaningful part of the story. They aren't window dressing.
Dan got a storyline (one that was never completed in the movie but I digress)
I thought his story wrapped up quite nicely.
Don't fret everyone but I certainly recommend being vocal on this forum about your concern. There are way too many jaded people who are being swayed by these poorly written and downright falsely written reviews.
In like 10 or 20 years this period of Hollywood churning out legacy sequels and reboots of historic IP en masse isnt going to be looked on very positively.
You can see the writing on the wall now.
The younger generation have a depressing future ahead - Their childhood memories will feature lesser versions of their parents memories.
The problem isn't the critics. The problem is you.
Critics are normal human beings, for the most part, who really enjoy watching movies and write critically about them to help inform average people whether they want to spend their precious time and money on movies.
Part of the review is whether or not it is good/bad. But quickly following this is a breakdown of exactly what the movie is - its parts - and how that adds up to the good or bad assessment.
For example: MANY critics and fans alike have pointed out that this movie isn't particularly funny, similar to Afterlife.
Is that a positive or a negative? All depends on who you are. There are MANY on this sub for whom Ghostbusters is a horror fantasy, with occasional jokes thrown in for levity. There are others who see that original movie as, first and foremost, a comedy. Yes, a comedy with horror, scifi, romance, and adventure elements thrown in, but first and foremost a comedy.
So you can judge the movie on its own successes with the direction it chose; at the same time, it's also fair to compare it to the all-time classic original that defined the standard.
Critics are writing for your average viewer. Your average viewer is hoping to watch a movie that, not knowing anything more than the original GB'84, will be enjoyable. In the same way that I, as a non-Marvel fan, can walk into any of the latest phase of movies and get something out of them.
You are not the average viewer. You are someone who has possibly watched RGB >AND< Extreme GB in its entirety and know the canon. Or, you are someone who knows what a Clipard valve is. You are someone who possibly still owns a massive collection of GB toys that you are too old to play with. You are possibly someone with prop replicas. You possibly know the difference between the IDW and 88MPH comic series. Hell, you are possibly even someone who knows why we're all mad at Sebastian Clavet.
From what I gather, this movie was HEAVILY made for you. It has TONS of fan service, nods to obscure moments, etc, etc, etc. It also delves deep into the idea of RGB, which was heavily a kiddie product that I LOVED back in the 80s.
You got the movie you wanted.
Your average viewer did not. And it's beyond fair to point this out.
The critics are not part of some conspiratorial cabal. You are part of of the cabal, in which Ghostbusters is a sacrosanct cinematic masterpiece to which any new entry must be gushed over unwaveringly, without any disagreement. Unless of course, it's a full reboot in which case it will be reviled.
The most sensible point that doesn't put down either party. Thank you.
I’m talking specifically about how there are multiple critics complaining that “the old guys are in it too much” when, outside of Aykroyd, they’re barely in it at all. It’s like they didn’t even watch the movie. And many, many critics are saying this. It’s very strange.
What I’ve read, from multiple critics, is that they’re in it at the expense of the new characters. In other words, every time you throw one of the vets a few minutes, that’s a few minutes less of firming up the new team.
I haven’t seen it. I am in no way saying this sentiment is true. But critics are complaining not that there’s too much old GB. It’s that you’re detracting from character arcs for the current cast for fan service with the dinosaurs.
Critics are useless shitheads with a superiority complex.
This is ridiculous. Critics love movies as much as you do, on the whole. There’s just a very solid chance you love movies for a very different reason than most mainstream critics love movies. This does not make them wrong, and it doesn’t make you wrong. It means you guys are using an entirely different litmus test for whether a movie is good or not. Good critics will make it very clear not only if they like or dislike a movie, but why. If you read the why and they don’t factor into why you think a movie is good or bad, then just ignore it. It’s very easy.
I think it's now time the OGs step out the way now. The new team has to be able to stand on their own.
I have no issue with Ray and Winston being around if it fits the story. But, and I never thought I'd say this, we don't need to see Venkman again.
I kinda love that Trevor’s entire arc was lifted straight out of deleted Luis Tully scenes in Ghostbuster II.
That’s a complaint now too? I thought everyone was crying that Phoebe might be gay (or as I like to call it, ectosexual). People suck. That was a fun movie and I’m actually looking forward to future projects.
when in reality Murray, Hudson and Potts had maybe 15 lines of dialogue between them in the entire movie. Aykroyd had a decent sized role and I was happy to see it.
Dude, they almost had as many lines (if not more) than Paul Rudd and Carrie Coons combined. You didn't feel the main Spangler family was underdeveloped here compared to Afterlife? Guess why that happened? Where did the focus shift?
The OG have way more screentime than in Afterlife, and even that had complaints of lathering it on thick at the end. There's a reason this movie has been called Ghostbusters: Dominion
Aykroyd had more screen time than Coon and possibly more than Rudd. The other OGs definitely didn’t.
I believe there is some ageism going on with some of these critics. And they won't admit it.
Very much so. I’ve seen some abhorrent comments where a lot of people just want older people out of sight. Personally, I like seeing people 35 years older than me doing awesome stuff in a movie.
Loved Ray and Winston. I think both were underused. Peter was fun but had no point, and Janine suiting up didn’t make sense for her character.
This film should’ve been a two parter ending on a cliffhanger.
Overall, I give it a B-
To me Ghostbusters was never really about busting ghosts. It was about how great that cast was together. The ghost busting was just the vehicle to drive the action and humor. I love what’s been built around McKenna Grace, who is a superstar in the making. But I’m not about to complain about seeing the old cast mates having fun.
Ya that’s all silly. Feels like they complain just to complain about something. I thought it was great to see the OGs. They fit very nicely into the storyline. And I think their acting was excellent. Better than many of the younger actors in the movie. (Not trying to throw shade but the OGs are just really good!)
I don't want them out, I just don't want them to suit up anymore. We got that in Afterlife. If the OGs are going to show up every time there's a huge threat, I lose faith in Gary, Callie, Trevor, and Phoebe. As an audience member, I don't feel like they're competent because Pete, Ray, and Zed always have to show up.
Let the OGs be there, but let them be what they were before the climax. Winston is the money, and the mission control, like Nick Fury in the Avengers. Ray can be the guy who tracks down quirky leads and odd bits of folklore. Peter can use his psychology degree as he did in interviewing Nazeem. But leave the Ghostbusting to the actual cast. Winston had the perfect way to help Ray confront his age and mortality; let that be their role from now on. It's, "A young man's person's game."
They're just the type that it will always be something. Take out the OGs and they would've been, "How can you have a GHOSTBUSTERS movie set in NEW YORK and not have the originals play a major role!?" It's really damed if you do, damed if you don't sometimes.
If you phase the OGs out I might find myself less interested. I'll still watch but seeing those guys, aged and in those roles makes too much sense. Besides, the new characters other than Phoebe really aren't that interesting. They have limited interest in the paranormal (again, other than Phoebe- who is mostly interested in science) and are either a GB Fan (Grooberson (sp?), Podcast) or entirely don't care-just inherited the shit (Callie, Trevor).
The kids in the GB engineering make the most sense to succeed the Ghostbusters. Plant Phoebe there until she is 18, have Winston and Ray tutor them... Bring in Podcast and Grooberson.
Like Peter says in GB1, Ray is the heart and soul of the Ghostbusters. He needs to be there.
They also decided Frozen Empire would be bad before it was released. I’m inclined to think that critics really do talk to each other, and herd a little bit. Not a planned or organized conspiracy but certainly something that naturally happens before they actually watch the films, based on preexisting narratives and conversations they have among themselves and with their readers. I think the problem has gotten worse as critics have moved from local or regional markets, which gave them some insulation, to international online audiences.
the OG's felt like they were in it just the right amount, not too much and not too little. the thing i really liked about this movie was how it felt like an organic Ghostbusters world. so characters and ideas can come in and out any time.
OP if it’s any consolation here’s my thinking.
Will Sony, a large corporation, listen to a loyal fan base who spent enough money to make it so the studio can market FE as “the #1 movie in America!” or a bunch of snide assholes who make a living (and have a track record) of trashing their films (after watching them for free).
I don’t think Ghostbusters as a franchise has ever won an Oscar or anything like. It does have a loyal fan base, is culturally significant, and makes at least decent enough money for Sony.
TLDR: critics can eat Zuul shit.
Journalists absolutely do have personal discards they use to coordinate amongst each other. And Ghostbusters has become a point of embarrassment for them ever since they got fucked when GB16 bombed whilst the new movies are praised, so they're doing everything in their power to poison the narrative against them.
This is stupid nonsense.
I enjoyed it. Other’s didn’t. It’s a fairly divisive film even amongst the fans.
Pretending like there’s this secret cabal of professional reviewers coordinating in secret chats to hate on the franchise, and cause fans pain is delusional.
Sometimes a movie is a mixed bag. It doesn’t take a conspiracy.
It’s a fairly divisive film even amongst the fans.
The only people I've seen shitting on it here can only claim that it's "rushed" (without explaining how or why), that there's too many characters, and the villain doesn't have enough screentime. Out of all of these, literally only the second one has any actual value behind it - the other two are just whinging from people who probably didn't even watch the first two films.
"Some people, Master Wayne, just want to watch the world burn" ~ Alfred Pennyworth~
"Some people, Master
Wayne, just want to watch the world
Burn" Alfred Pennyworth
- egbert71
I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully. Learn more about me.
Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete"
It’s people butthurt still about panning of the 2016 Answer the Call.
Honestly, we can move past both Melnitz and Venkman. They don’t really have any bearing on the story.
Keep Ray and Zeddemore. They both are brining something to the story. Ray the expertise and Winston is funding. So that makes sense. While I love Venkman and Melnitz, they don’t bring anything to the table at this point.
You’d think we would have seen Oscar, but guess they don’t have that in plans.
I’ll never understand the hate for sequels. Yet it’s probably why we’ve got a handful of retellings of Batman’s origin story and can’t get Nightwing in a movie once or a Batman Beyond film in over 25 years.
Spiderman and Ninja Turtles keep getting reboots and any time something gets a sequel be it Star Wars or Rocky people shit on it. We can get 11 Harry Potter movies within the same universe and they keep making Jurassic Park and Fast and the Furious movies. It’s been 40 years and we’ve only gotten 4 Ghostbusters movies within the same universe. They can keep pumping out Marvel movies and can somehow justify more Minions and Frozen movies but man, something about Ghostbusters has these critics pissed.
Potts had no reason to be there.
Wasn't it a complaint that the OG's had such little screen time in Afterlife?
Guys, reviews for Ghostbusters are always going to be screwed. You have the purple brained psychos still bent out of shape that ATC failed and you also have people who just like to hate on legacy movies.
Not that FE doesn't have issues; every movie does and yes even GB1. That doesn't make them bad or unwatchable.
Ghostbusters is dead to me. R.I.P.
Ray and Winston's roles in this film felt much more organic than they did in Afterlife. And it's just a weird thing to complain about period, like why wouldn't you want to see the original Ghostbusters in a Ghostbusters movie?
I only hope that in the next one, they can bring in Louis, Dana, and even Oscar.