Werstrooper
Well-Known Member
The only person that finds Dan Aykroyd to be funny is Dan Aykroyd.
Ghostbusters 3 is a go! (according to the writers, director and producer)
- Thread starter CB2001
- Start date
- Status
Dave Ward
Sr Member
See, I agree. Except I *don't* want GB3. Which bucks the above trend, so maybe it will be good. Right? Right. (thinks)
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
I would like to see the proton packs back in action and Ghostbuster emblems and theme song popping up everywhere again.
Quasi-reboot:
Ray leaves the firehouse to his niece in his will. She and her friends decide to check it out. As they dig through the junk and find old newspaper clippings etc, a few tall tales are recanted regarding "alleged" exploits of the Ghostbusters. They eventually have to take up arms against a new threat and the next generation of Ghostbusters is born. Any of the old cast who would like to make a cameo could be squeezed in, and anyone who didn't wouldn't affect the story.
Emma Stone
Aziz Ansari
Patton Oswalt
Bill Hader
Quasi-reboot:
Ray leaves the firehouse to his niece in his will. She and her friends decide to check it out. As they dig through the junk and find old newspaper clippings etc, a few tall tales are recanted regarding "alleged" exploits of the Ghostbusters. They eventually have to take up arms against a new threat and the next generation of Ghostbusters is born. Any of the old cast who would like to make a cameo could be squeezed in, and anyone who didn't wouldn't affect the story.
Emma Stone
Aziz Ansari
Patton Oswalt
Bill Hader
Solo4114
Master Member
I ask the following in all sincerity. I want to be clear that I'm not trying to be snarky or obnoxious about it. I'd genuinely like to understand the thought process involved. All that said, here's my question:
Why?
Given the propensity for Hollywood to make at best "meh" remakes and at worst some abomination that tarnishes the reputation of a once-great franchise, why would you want them to give it a shot here?
Given the body of work that Akroyd and Ramis have put out in the last 20 years, do you think that they, as writers, would be up to the task? Or would you hand writing duties to someone else?
For that matter, why is GB1 and GB2 not enough?
Do you have faith that Hollywood could actually pull this off and have it be awesome? Do you think it will be as awesome as the first one?
I'm genuinely curious here because it's not just this franchise that has this whole "Give us more!" attitude associated with it. Is it really enough to JUST see proton packs and ghost traps and guys in brown jumpsuits and combat boots running around crackin' wise?
To explain why I ask, it might help to understand where I come from.
First, I have ZERO faith in Hollywood to pull this off well. I expect that it will botch the job and at best produce a generic comedy with a Ghostbusters wrapping. That is not enough for me to warrant going back to the well. I'd rather see Hollywood challenge itself to come up with a new idea. At least then said idea will rise or fall on its own merit, rather than the strength of the GB brand.
Second, I'm good with the original two. I don't actually NEED more. I would LOVE it if we could keep cranking out films that rise to the same level of quality and humor that GB1 has, while still feeling fresh and entertaining. But I don't think that's actually possible. I think that's like saying "I'd LOVE it if all the nations of the world could collectively decide they'd never engage in warfare again, and we could abolish police forces and just share and share alike." I mean, yeah, it's a lovely idea, but it's a pipe dream, in my opinion.
So, I say again, "Why?" What's your take on these issues? What drives your desire to see more of the GB universe, and what gives you faith that seeing more wouldn't just be a waste of time or a disappointment?
Why?
Given the propensity for Hollywood to make at best "meh" remakes and at worst some abomination that tarnishes the reputation of a once-great franchise, why would you want them to give it a shot here?
Given the body of work that Akroyd and Ramis have put out in the last 20 years, do you think that they, as writers, would be up to the task? Or would you hand writing duties to someone else?
For that matter, why is GB1 and GB2 not enough?
Do you have faith that Hollywood could actually pull this off and have it be awesome? Do you think it will be as awesome as the first one?
I'm genuinely curious here because it's not just this franchise that has this whole "Give us more!" attitude associated with it. Is it really enough to JUST see proton packs and ghost traps and guys in brown jumpsuits and combat boots running around crackin' wise?
To explain why I ask, it might help to understand where I come from.
First, I have ZERO faith in Hollywood to pull this off well. I expect that it will botch the job and at best produce a generic comedy with a Ghostbusters wrapping. That is not enough for me to warrant going back to the well. I'd rather see Hollywood challenge itself to come up with a new idea. At least then said idea will rise or fall on its own merit, rather than the strength of the GB brand.
Second, I'm good with the original two. I don't actually NEED more. I would LOVE it if we could keep cranking out films that rise to the same level of quality and humor that GB1 has, while still feeling fresh and entertaining. But I don't think that's actually possible. I think that's like saying "I'd LOVE it if all the nations of the world could collectively decide they'd never engage in warfare again, and we could abolish police forces and just share and share alike." I mean, yeah, it's a lovely idea, but it's a pipe dream, in my opinion.
So, I say again, "Why?" What's your take on these issues? What drives your desire to see more of the GB universe, and what gives you faith that seeing more wouldn't just be a waste of time or a disappointment?
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
I say the potential reward outweighs the risk ... because ..... there is no risk. I do not think making another Ghostbusters could ruin how great I think the original is. I see a lot of garbage movies out there, but not everything is garbage. When I see movies like the Avengers (which could have been a total disaster) I am optimistic. I didnt think a Thor movie could even be made, much less an Avengers movie. Now they are tackling Guardians? I think anything can be great if great people work on it, and understand what it is they are working with, which is exactly why I think the torch should be passed off to someone else, I have no idea who, but someone who knows what makes a Ghostbusters movie. Could it be better than the original? Highly unlikely! But could it be entertaining, and would I like to see proton packs with some new modifications? YES I WOULD! Maybe even a new ECTO.
When is enough enough? Never. When do we have enough comic hero movies? Why even make Superman 2 if you have Superman 1? Why keep going? Why go Mars if you have gone to the moon? I guess I just like to keep going, even if there are a few Caddyshack 2 movies along the way. Who knows, someone might even make an Emprie Strikes Back!
When is enough enough? Never. When do we have enough comic hero movies? Why even make Superman 2 if you have Superman 1? Why keep going? Why go Mars if you have gone to the moon? I guess I just like to keep going, even if there are a few Caddyshack 2 movies along the way. Who knows, someone might even make an Emprie Strikes Back!
Solo4114
Master Member
Interesting.
I guess we differ fundamentally on two specific points.
First, for me, a bad later entry (or prequel) diminishes my enjoyment of the rest of the films. Or at least it used to. Given how often I've had to reconcile myself to a disappointing further entry, that's become less and less of an issue over the years, but it's still there to some degree. Towards that end, I'd rather they just leave well enough alone rather than put out a crappy entry that I either have to ignore (as I did with Indy 4) or purge from my brain somehow (as I've done with...Alien3/4, Highlander films other than 1, Matrix films other than 1, Star Wars prequels, etc., etc., etc.).
Second, I tend to see films like the Avengers and the Marvel Phase 1 run as lightning striking. There's FAR more crap out there, particularly for branded products. I do think that when you have talented people involved who understand and care about the subject matter, things can go well. Marvel's Phase 1 was a good example of that. But I tend to think that doesn't happen very often, and studio execs are far more complacent and willing to just kick out whatever garbage film there is as long as it has the name recognition. Or the execs give too many notes, and end up taking what might otherwise have been decent and turning it into something stupid. This is why I'm generally pessimistic when I see "Remake" or "reboot" or some other "branded property" being announced as a new film. By contrast, I get a lot more interested when you're talking about something that isn't tied to an existing, well-known property. It might still be crap, but at least it'll be crap that stands on its own.
I suppose there's one other reason why I object to so many of the remakes out there -- and remakes specifically.
I find it's hard to get people of the younger generations to appreciate older films at all. People flat-out refuse to watch black and white films, regardless of whether the film is any good. People refuse to watch old school sci-fi stuff, even if the film might've been instrumental in the genre (e.g. old Flash Gordon serials, anything that Ray Harryhausen was involved in, etc.). Hell, a lot of kids won't watch anything from even the '90s now. Remakes tend to feed into this. Why watch the old one when you could watch the remake, right? I'd rather people enjoy the originals for what they are, instead of trying to re-make them as something new that ultimately becomes "just another film." Think of it this way. If they remade Animal House in 10 years, do you think people who "imprinted" on the new one and thought it was "meh. Ok, but not amazing" would bother watching the original? I'd bet not, and they'd be missing out on an absolutely classic comedy, and arguably the launching of the "raunchy comedy" genre (at least as it became defined). There's so much to appreciate out there, beyond the myopic view of whatever came out last week, but if studios just keep pumping out remakes, a lot of people will miss out on that, I think.
I guess we differ fundamentally on two specific points.
First, for me, a bad later entry (or prequel) diminishes my enjoyment of the rest of the films. Or at least it used to. Given how often I've had to reconcile myself to a disappointing further entry, that's become less and less of an issue over the years, but it's still there to some degree. Towards that end, I'd rather they just leave well enough alone rather than put out a crappy entry that I either have to ignore (as I did with Indy 4) or purge from my brain somehow (as I've done with...Alien3/4, Highlander films other than 1, Matrix films other than 1, Star Wars prequels, etc., etc., etc.).
Second, I tend to see films like the Avengers and the Marvel Phase 1 run as lightning striking. There's FAR more crap out there, particularly for branded products. I do think that when you have talented people involved who understand and care about the subject matter, things can go well. Marvel's Phase 1 was a good example of that. But I tend to think that doesn't happen very often, and studio execs are far more complacent and willing to just kick out whatever garbage film there is as long as it has the name recognition. Or the execs give too many notes, and end up taking what might otherwise have been decent and turning it into something stupid. This is why I'm generally pessimistic when I see "Remake" or "reboot" or some other "branded property" being announced as a new film. By contrast, I get a lot more interested when you're talking about something that isn't tied to an existing, well-known property. It might still be crap, but at least it'll be crap that stands on its own.
I suppose there's one other reason why I object to so many of the remakes out there -- and remakes specifically.
I find it's hard to get people of the younger generations to appreciate older films at all. People flat-out refuse to watch black and white films, regardless of whether the film is any good. People refuse to watch old school sci-fi stuff, even if the film might've been instrumental in the genre (e.g. old Flash Gordon serials, anything that Ray Harryhausen was involved in, etc.). Hell, a lot of kids won't watch anything from even the '90s now. Remakes tend to feed into this. Why watch the old one when you could watch the remake, right? I'd rather people enjoy the originals for what they are, instead of trying to re-make them as something new that ultimately becomes "just another film." Think of it this way. If they remade Animal House in 10 years, do you think people who "imprinted" on the new one and thought it was "meh. Ok, but not amazing" would bother watching the original? I'd bet not, and they'd be missing out on an absolutely classic comedy, and arguably the launching of the "raunchy comedy" genre (at least as it became defined). There's so much to appreciate out there, beyond the myopic view of whatever came out last week, but if studios just keep pumping out remakes, a lot of people will miss out on that, I think.
To hear Ray Parker Jr's song in a movie theater again(which I've never even done
) that should be reason enough
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
This is something I have changed opinion on several times. The example I most often use is Caddyshack, one of my favorite movies, followed by one of the worst sequels ever, Caddyshack 2. I don't think the former is harmed in any way by the latter.
However, one day when I was viewing Wrath of Khan, I pondered what it would have been like if Spock had not returned in Star Trek 3. Can you imagine how much more impact that scene in WoK would still have, if that was the true end of Spock. When we watch it now, we know he pops right back up in the next movie. So, I suppose I must concede that prequels/sequels do affect other movies to some extent, depending on your ability to ignore.
I agree. I do think there are more great movies out there than the phrase "lightning strike" would indicate, but yes, there are is a lot of crap out there. Maybe I have become so used to tuning out what I don't like, as well as being able to identify the good stuff, that the majority of garbage goes by unnoticed, lol.
I think that is where it is up to Aykroyd and company to choose wisely who they partner with and pass the torch on to. There is still life in the Ghostbuster brand. I can envision a great movie, and yes, it would also be extremely marketable and profitable. I think Aykroyd knows that, but it would seem to me he just doesn't know how to tap into it. Even the all-time great NFL coaches have to know when the game has passed them by, and when to ride off into the sunset. But they don't just disband the whole team. Someone else takes up the mantle and work continues. The great teams are the ones who chose the next person wisely.
That is true, but I don't know to what extent a remake or reboot impacts most peoples appreciation of the original. Some are just so biased against older movies, especially black and white movies as you mentioned. For many, there is just some mental block when it comes to older material. I know some who refuse to watch animated movies, but laugh so hard at the previews for them. It boggles my mind. Sometimes a reboot can lead you to the source material. Not sure I would have ever discovered Kansas City Confidential if I had not heard it was the basis for Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs.
I know my view is the minority around here. Maybe my opinion is devalued because I generally can find something to appreciate and like most movies. I am just almost always in favor of trying. As the old saying goes, "you miss 100% of the shots you dont take."
I just think of how many of my favorite movies are remakes/reboots, and sequels.
Terminator 2
Empire Strikes Back
Aliens
Back to the Future 2
The Maltese Falcon
The Thing
When I think of movies like that, and how minute of a chance that anything will ruin my enjoyment of the original, I say I am all for it, provided they are making GB3 in conjunction with proper people having good intentions, and not a money grab.
Last edited:
Agreed, sequels can most definitely be better than the original, and without making the original any less epic than it is.
The evil cinema-people of Sweden don't do screenings of old movies
Ah, but that could be done just by watching the original in a theater!
The evil cinema-people of Sweden don't do screenings of old movies
I never understand people who feel threatened by another sequel. The original is still there and will always be there. So if you didn't like the star wars prequel trilogy or Indy 4, does it really ruin all that came before? Surely not. I am with the majority. If i don't like GB 3 - to hell with it ;-) I still got GB 1 and 2. There are even a lot of people who hate GB2 which I understand. But still got the first one to watch over and over again. So relax and hopefully we will all enjoy what will become GB 3.
For me it's not that it specifically ruins what came before, I'll always like those films. It's that it weakens the brand. Take POTC for instance, the first one was amazing, original, and creative. When it came out I remember everyone saying how awesome it was. Then all the sequels came out and they were progressively worse until now, when you mention POTC people generally have an unfavourable view of the franchise (aside from Sparrow who is just a great character regardless).
So while it doesn't hurt the original film a bad sequel CAN overshadow it and change the public perspective of it because it's no longer viewed as a stand alone but rather a part of the whole.
Aykroyd BRIEFLY talked plot at the 3:30 mark in this video:
News Distribution Network - Shared Video
His direct quote:
News Distribution Network - Shared Video
His direct quote:
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Aykroyd,
Let it go.
Do what Lucas did.
Let it go.
Do what Lucas did.
CB2001
Master Member
You mean instead of making another sequel, start a trilogy of prequels that appear to be worse than the originals, and release heavily re-edited versions of the originals into theaters to the point where they are completely absurd and completely ruin what was once a good franchise, and then sell the rights to Disney, who will then hire the director of "Star Trek" to make an even more of a mess than you did with the prequels? :lol
Does that even make sense? I mean Star Trek was more of a reboot than a continuation.
Are they going to recast Spengler, Stantz and Venkman? Or does he mean that is going to take a whole different route to what came before?
--> these are rhetorical questions ;-) since we don't know anything... YET
Anyway, I love the franchise. Can't wait to see what is next
Are they going to recast Spengler, Stantz and Venkman? Or does he mean that is going to take a whole different route to what came before?
--> these are rhetorical questions ;-) since we don't know anything... YET
Anyway, I love the franchise. Can't wait to see what is next
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
I was hoping more for skipping straight to the end of all that and passing Ghostbusters on to someone else, not necessarily Disney though.
- Status
Similar threads
