By Chris Snellgrove
| Updated 1 hour ago

Right now, Starfleet Academy is in a very weird place. The show was canceled almost immediately after Season 1 ended, and the most likely reason is that it just didn’t have enough viewers to justify a renewal. However, Season 2 has already been filmed, meaning that we are (unless the network Batgirls the thing) likely to see more adventures of these controversial cadets. That means that Paramount can’t really say anything definitive about why the show ended for fear of diminishing the audience even further. For that same reason, none of the powers that be at Star Trek can say anything even remotely critical about it.

Or can they? Recently, Strange New Worlds showrunners Akiva Goldsman and Henry Alonso gave an interview explaining what fans could look forward to with this show’s fourth season. This mostly concerned character development and just how much work went into the dreaded muppet episode. However, they also went out of their way to emphasize how this season wasn’t going to have its own “Big Bad.” Goldsman elaborated that this meant nothing like the Gorn or the Vezda, but these guys were never Big Bads in the traditional sense of the term. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this sounded like a different reassurance altogether: that SNW would be nothing like Starfleet Academy!

Big Bad Or Just A Big Bite?

In a recent interview with Polygon, Strange New Worlds showrunner Akiva Goldsman said that Strange New Worlds Season 4 is going to have more of an episodic, Original Series style of storytelling. That means no “Big Bad” whose story would take multiple episodes to complete, like the Gorn in the first two seasons and the Vezda in Season 3. However, these guys weren’t Big Bads as we know the term. The Gorn made a couple of scary appearances in Season 1 and were part of a Season 2 cliffhanger, but they weren’t an ongoing concern. Similarly, the Vezda appeared in only two Season 3 episodes, where they showed the ability to possess various bodies.  

Both the Gorn and the Vezda are faceless bad guys. Like, the Gorn are presented as Star Trek’s version of the xenomorphs, and they are scary because they are unknowable. The Vezda, meanwhile, are quite literally faceless, having to take over others’ bodies to give themselves a properly corporeal form. The term “Big Bad” was coined by Buffy the Vampire Slayer writers to refer to the dominant villain of each season. Big Bads included demons like Mayor Wilkins, former allies like Angelus and Dark Willow, occasional gods like Glory, and so on. These villains usually had at least half a season of development and served as big personalities for our heroes to consistently bounce off of.

Star Trek’s Latest Big Bad

What does this have to do with Starfleet Academy? Strange New Worlds didn’t have Buffy-style Big Bads: the Gorn and the Vezda were minor parts of their respective seasons, and they aren’t exactly villains for our heroes to bounce off of. The Gorn don’t talk, and the Vezda can only hop into others’ bodies to spout vaguely threatening comments about evil. But there was a recent Star Trek show with a larger-than-life villain whose oversized personality dominated the entire season. In Starfleet Academy, Paul Giamatti’s Nus Braka appears in half of Season 1, including an explosive entrance in the first episode and an extremely memorable bow in the last episode.

Nus Braka cast a long shadow over Starfleet Academy’s entire first season. He’s part of Caleb’s dark origin story and has an outsized effect on the cadet’s development. He outwits the cadets and their mentors, managing to blow up a Starfleet vessel and steal classified research with which he used to threaten the entire Federation. While I personally thought Giamatti gave a great performance, the fact remains that if you don’t like his character, you’re probably not going to like the show because he’s just in it so much.

Big Bads? Zero. Muppets? One

That brings us back to Akiva Goldsman’s comments to Polygon about Strange New Worlds Season 4 having no Big Bads. Because the show never really had proper, Buffy-style Big Bads, my theory is that the showrunner was quietly distancing his own show from Starfleet Academy. His comment is a way of saying that SNW didn’t go all-in on a single villain, so you don’t have to worry about an overused enemy driving you away. That is, of course, part of the show’s episodic charm: as with earlier shows like The Original Series and The Next Generation, the sheer variety of stories means that even if you hate one episode, you may love the next.

So, call me a conspiracy theorist if you must (don’t make me wear one of those neck bugs from “Conspiracy”), but Akiva Goldsman’s comments about no Big Bads in Strange New Worlds Season 4 seem like a coded way of saying “don’t worry, it won’t be like Starfleet Academy.” That might upset some fans who would prefer more solidarity between shows and showrunners. But to anyone who hated SFA (especially if they hated it because of Nus Braka), this might be just enough reassurance for them to tune into Strange New Worlds when it premieres July 23rd on Paramount+.

By Chris Snellgrove
| Published 26 seconds ago

It’s been a pretty weird decade to be a Ghostbusters fan. Paul Feige’s all-female movie was supposed to reboot the franchise for modern audiences and make the franchise mainstream again. Instead, it became a firestorm of controversy, and we eventually got Ghostbusters: Afterlife. While it was more about Spielbergian wonder than cynical wisecracks, Afterlife appealed to the old-school fans, earning enough money to warrant a sequel: Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire. However, Frozen Empire was a crowded, somewhat sloppy film that cost more and made less than Afterlife, leaving the future of the franchise uncertain.

Now, the latest iteration of Ghostbusters will be on the small screen rather than the big screen. A new, animated show is launching on Netflix in 2027, and fans have been eager to hear more about what this cartoon will be about. Recently, Sony unveiled the show’s logo as well as its provocative new name, Ghostbusters: Night Shift. Many are buzzing with excitement, but some can’t help but ask the obvious question: “wait, that’s it?” This cartoon has been in the works for several years now, and the fact that it is still so shrouded in mystery is starting to feel like a very, very bad sign.

A New Take On A Classic Logo

When Sony unveiled the logo for Ghostubers: Night Shift, fans were divided. On the one hand, it’s nice that this logo shares so much in common with the original film logo; most reboots and revivals change so much that we love, so it’s nice to know that this upcoming cartoon isn’t shaking things up too much. On the other hand, the new logo is so close to the original logo that it seems almost odd that they changed it. The changes are also so odd and minimalist (like yellowed teeth and a beastly claw on the ghost) that it seems like a borderline AI creation. The prompt? “Make the Ghostbusters logo look scary.”

Additionally, the subtitle “Night Shift” has caused speculation about who the core Ghostbusters team will be and what the show will be about. The name implies that the cartoon likely won’t follow the original Ghostbusters, who (in addition to being very old) didn’t answer many calls in the wee hours. The show is also unlikely to follow the core crew of Aferlife and Frozen Empire. It’s possible that the new show will go full meta and feature the Ghostbusters as an in-universe franchise. Therefore, we might be following a new team of a local Ghostbusters branch, one that covers the titular night shift.

Trusted Names And Plenty Of Secrets

Aside from the new name and new logo, we know very little about Ghostbusters: Night Shift. The show will be a Netflix exclusive and is set to premiere in 2027, though an exact release date remains unknown. It’s not entirely clear what kind of animation style we are likely to see, either. While the smart money is on the show having the uncanny, CGI-animated look of Netflix’s Stranger Things cartoon, the show may end up with a more traditional 2D style, like the streamer’s steadily-growing list of exclusive anime titles. One thing we do know about Ghostbusters: Night Shift, though, is that it is being made by some names we can trust.

The show is being executive-produced by Dan Aykroyd, the franchise star who originally came up with the idea of the Ghostbusters in the first place. Other EPs include Jason Reitman, Gil Kenan, both of whom co-wrote Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire. Finally, Elliott Kalan is serving as writer and co-showrunner of this new cartoon; if his name doesn’t ring a bell, Kalan has written for The Daily Show and Mystery Science Theater 3000, and he’s the motormouthed, show-stealing cohost of the hit podcast The Flophouse. Kalan is also a comics writer who gave us the often-memed scene where the villainous Sauron tells Spider-Man he’d rather turn people into dinosaurs than cure cancer.

Akyroyd is the OG talent, Reitman is the shepherd of the modern movies, and Kalan is the passionate fan working on his dream franchise. Together, they might just have what it takes to make Ghostbusters: Night Shift into Netflix’s latest killer cartoon. Otherwise, this beloved franchise may fade away and become the worst kind of ghost: one that nobody even cares about watching, much less busting.

By TeeJay Small
| Updated 30 seconds ago

If you’ve got your finger on the pulse of the latest comedy outings, you’ve probably already seen trailers for Focker-In-Law. The film, which stars Ben Stiller, Robert De Niro, and Ariana Grande, is the fourth entrant into the Meet The Parents franchise, which launched all the way back in the year 2000. The original Meet The Parents is an iconic comedy which still holds up to this day, and the 2004 follow-up Meet The Fockers is a fun, quirky film that has some solid moments. 

Unfortunately, the fun sort of stopped in 2010 when Stiller and De Niro reunited for a third time with Little Fockers. This movie is a pale replica of its predecessors, offering little more than a tepid retread of jokes that were funnier the first time around. Despite the film being a bit of a slog, and Ben Stiller literally assuring fans that they don’t need to rewatch the trilogy to understand the upcoming sequel (he even claims that he doesn’t stand by the third film, per X), I decided to revisit Little Fockers on Netflix.

Move Along, Nothing To See Here!

I recall catching Little Fockers in theaters with my family upon release, and thinking little of it. In the years since, I’ve basically forgotten the entire plot, other than the fact that Gaylord ‘Greg’ Focker (Stiller) and his wife Pam now have children. In the movie, the Fockers are preparing a fifth birthday bash for their twins, when De Niro’s domineering Jack Byrnes drops in for a surprise visit.

Operating in his capacity as a hard-ass father-in-law, as well as a CIA retiree, Jack continually gives Greg a hard time. Jack has never approved of Greg, though extenuating circumstances have forced his hand in anointing him the new family patriarch and the arbiter of the coveted “circle of trust.” This is set in motion because Jack’s other daughter is in the process of getting a divorce, thus ousting the son-in-law that Jack actually enjoys.

Unfortunately, this passing of the torch is interrupted by a series of contrived, awkward situations that mistakenly lead Jack and others to believe Greg is unfaithful. If the plot sounds bare bones, that’s because it exists primarily to be a joke delivery system. If the jokes sound bare bones, it’s because the writers didn’t care about this movie at all when they were working on it.

Disappointing Lack Of Little Fockers

The primary source of comedy in this film stems from the fact that Focker sounds a lot like the F-bomb. If that joke blows your mind, you’ll probably be rolling on the floor by the time the film cuts to credits. If not, you’ll probably be half asleep by the fifth time Robert De Niro drops terms like “The god-Focker” and pauses for raucous applause. There are a few solid comedic beats on occasion, but it really feels like the script could have benefited from an extra draft or two.

If this film has anything going for it, it’s the stacked cast of side characters. Notable performers include Owen Wilson, Dustin Hoffman, Barbara Streisand, and Jessica Alba, but numerous top-notch comedians appear in small bit parts as well. Kevin Hart, Rob Huebel, John DiMaggio, Jordan Peele, and Nick Kroll comprise a few faces that wouldn’t have stood out in 2010, but make for a real DiCaprio-pointing-at-the-TV moment today.

At the end of the day, Little Fockers really doesn’t hold up. As it turns out, that Ben Stiller tweet and the 10 percent Rotten Tomatoes score really weren’t lying to me. This is a minor gripe, but I take umbrage with the fact that the movie doesn’t even focus on the kids all that much. For a film literally titled Little Fockers, I’d expect to see more of those little Fockers running around.

I guess I’m happy that I panned for any flecks of comedy gold within this sludge, if only to ensure that I won’t miss a beat when I queue up to see this comedic team remake the same comedy for the fourth time this November. Even still, you’d be better off brushing up on the first two films and letting your imagination fill in the blanks if and when you watch Focker-In-Law. At least Ariana Grande’s front-and-center billing on the poster implies that the new film will actually deliver on its title.

Little Fockers is currently streaming on Netflix, just in case you’re not willing to take my word for it. The first two films are on there as well, for those interested in turning a trilogy watch-through into a drinking game. Take a shot every time you hear De Niro drop Greg’s name in a silly way, and call it “getting Focked up.”