Ghostbusters 3 is a go! (according to the writers, director and producer)

[Jet Beetle]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

Kevin Smith of "Clerks" fame. Seriously, this is the kind of thing that'd be up his alley.

And the idea of doing it gets worse and worse.

I don't even want this to happen and the people that do aren't thinking this through - Harold Ramis hasn't been a good director in years - Yes he did do one of the funniest movies ever put to film (Caddyshack), but I've read interviews where he blames the American public for not understanding Year One and still thinks it's a funny film. There's no way this for this movie to clear the countless hurdles on the track in front of it, egos being the first 400.
I'd love it if they just went back and did Ackroyds original draft - or a version of it. Ghostbusters in now a franchise - there are station houses all over the place. Our focus should be on a group who are either about to be fired or have already been. A big bad ghost shows up and takes down all the Ghostbusters (even the original crew) and our underdogs have to step up and save the day.

I read a draft dated sometime in 86 or 87 for GB2 that started in the Amityville horror house - the group cleans out the ghosts but it looses money for the guy who bought it - he was charging people to tour the place - this was when they wrote a part in for Eddie Murphy.

this whole franchise would be better left to look at in 10 years when they are willing to give the movie to someone else beside Ramis.

 

[Bear]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

Ahnold of course, he could be a one-man ghostbusters team. A lone buster like in Commando, or Eraser, or Terminator.:rolleyes

 

[CTF]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

Besides the people who own proton packs, does anybody actually care about seeing this?

 

[Bear]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

Awhile ago I saw a clip of Bill Murry on David Letterman talking about GB3. His leg was in a cast, he had a scruffy/ugly week old beard, was dressed in ratty shorts and t-shirt, he looked and acted like a spaced out hippy. When asked abou a possible GB3, he acted like it was beneath him to even consider it and seemed be of the opinion that if he wasn't included it would be a disaster.

Is it me, or does Murry come off as a bit self-centered/egotistical when it comes to talking about this. I've heard that he has quite an ego, and acts like a prima-donna when discussing any type of project he may be involved with.

From what I've read, Ramis and Akroyd are eager to do this, but that it's been held up by Murry for one reason or another.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and the voices in my head have been telling me lies rolleyes

 

[CTF]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

Is it me, or does Murry come off as a bit self-centered/egotistical when it comes to talking about this. I've heard that he has quite an ego, and acts like a prima-donna when discussing any type of project he may be involved with.

From all accounts, the guy is an ass; no matter what the project is.

 

[nickytea]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

this whole franchise would be better left to look at in 10 years when they are willing to give the movie to someone else beside Ramis.

I was under the impression that Ramis was not director nor writing. Is that wrong? Not that I put any more faith in the guys that wrote that turd of a movie "Year One."

I agree though, elements of Ackroyd's original draft (franchises) would make a very stimulating addition. (And based on the progressions suggested by Ramis and Ackroyd in their bit of work on the video game, that direction might not be far off.)

 

[Jet Beetle]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

Is it me, or does Murry come off as a bit self-centered/egotistical when it comes to talking about this. I've heard that he has quite an ego, and acts like a prima-donna when discussing any type of project he may be involved with.

From what I've read, Ramis and Akroyd are eager to do this, but that it's been held up by Murry for one reason or another.

s

Without Murray- there is no movie in my opinion and he knows that. He may be an ass, but he is one of the coolest, funniest and interesting people on the planet. He knows how to carry or accent a movie and make it worth watching (Rushmore, Lost in Translation). When I'm watching trailers and Murray pops up, I know I'm going to see the movie - maybe not always in the theatre, but I will see it. Same way I used to get about John Cusack in the 80's.

His remarks on Letterman may come from the falling out he had with Ramis on the set of Groundhog day. I'm still not sure what the exact story is but I know it was a huge fight that led to the two of them not talking for years. This is also why there was no GB3 for years - Murray wouldn't work with Ramis.

Y'know... John Cusack would be a cool Ghostbuster.

 

[CTF]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

Y'know... John Cusack would be a cool Ghostbuster.

I don't know how that franchise would take to him breaking the fourth wall to chat 'bout what's been going on.

 

[Jet Beetle]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

I don't know how that franchise would take to him breaking the fourth wall to chat 'bout what's been going on.

lol:lol

 

[Jannix Quinn]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

If they do it, I hope they don't have 'replacement' ghostbusters.

Or... what about they start the film and Murray, Ramis etc have retired and are living off the wealth of the franchise.

Each city has it's own ghostbusters group, and you could make teams of all those bad suggestions people are saying. Basically every person who wants to, can have a gimmick cameo.

Big Bad monster arises in lots of locations and all the teams fight it.

Then ten minutes in, they all fail and get sucked into some portal of badassery.

The Big Bad wins, and the only one who can stop it are the originals, as reluctant, old and fat as they are.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

Akroyd said a few teases in this vid....

http://vimeo.com/11455001

 

[micdavis]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

If they do it, I hope they don't have 'replacement' ghostbusters.

Or... what about they start the film and Murray, Ramis etc have retired and are living off the wealth of the franchise.

Each city has it's own ghostbusters group, and you could make teams of all those bad suggestions people are saying. Basically every person who wants to, can have a gimmick cameo.

Big Bad monster arises in lots of locations and all the teams fight it.

Then ten minutes in, they all fail and get sucked into some portal of badassery.

The Big Bad wins, and the only one who can stop it are the originals, as reluctant, old and fat as they are.

Add in Peter dying in the first reel (by Murray's request) and then helps them from the otherside, and you may just have a movie there.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

And the idea of doing it gets worse and worse.

I don't even want this to happen and the people that do aren't thinking this through - Harold Ramis hasn't been a good director in years - Yes he did do one of the funniest movies ever put to film (Caddyshack), but I've read interviews where he blames the American public for not understanding Year One and still thinks it's a funny film. There's no way this for this movie to clear the countless hurdles on the track in front of it, egos being the first 400.
I'd love it if they just went back and did Ackroyds original draft - or a version of it. Ghostbusters in now a franchise - there are station houses all over the place. Our focus should be on a group who are either about to be fired or have already been. A big bad ghost shows up and takes down all the Ghostbusters (even the original crew) and our underdogs have to step up and save the day.

I read a draft dated sometime in 86 or 87 for GB2 that started in the Amityville horror house - the group cleans out the ghosts but it looses money for the guy who bought it - he was charging people to tour the place - this was when they wrote a part in for Eddie Murphy.

this whole franchise would be better left to look at in 10 years when they are willing to give the movie to someone else beside Ramis.

Oddly enough, I had the exact same idea back when I was in law school. Franchises, new guys, old guys taken down by the new big baddie. Probably some sorcerer or necromancer who was only half dead, rather than a ghost. Anyway, proof that two people really CAN write Ode to a Grecian Urn independently of each other.

 

[Egon Spengler]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

Honestly, Ghostbusters without Bill Murray, in my opinion, wouldn't be Ghostbusters. Just like it wouldn't be without Dan, or Harold, or Ernie.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

Honestly another ghostbusters AT ALL is a bad idea, I think. People are chasing a high that they'll never reach again. The closest thing to Ghostbusters 3, in my opinion, is probably Evolution. Remember that one? With David Duchovny? No? Yeah, that's my point.

I just don't see them catching lightning in a bottle again. I mean, it's not like Ghostbusters 2 was so fantastic either, was it? So why do people thing #3 would be better? And frankly, any movie with the Apatow Players is just going to be a Ghostbusters skin slapped on an otherwise unremarkable samey-feeling Apatow romp. And for me (A) that stuff's never been all that funny to begin with, and (B) whatever humor it offered is fast waning as it all blends together.

 

[d_osborn]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

And the idea of doing it gets worse and worse.

I don't even want this to happen and the people that do aren't thinking this through - Harold Ramis hasn't been a good director in years - Yes he did do one of the funniest movies ever put to film (Caddyshack), but I've read interviews where he blames the American public for not understanding Year One and still thinks it's a funny film. There's no way this for this movie to clear the countless hurdles on the track in front of it, egos being the first 400.

i'm totally with you. for me, it's like going to see a modern black sabbath concert... or the who... or blondie... or queen. they just aren't the same artists that they were in their golden day. it's kinda sad to see them still trying to go for it. i understand the cash-grab mentality, but come on! spielberg and lucas?! move on... do something else interesting. the STAR WARS prequels were awful. INDY 4 is unwatchable. ... and does anyone remember BLUES BROTHERS 2000?!?!

I'd love it if they just went back and did Ackroyds original draft - or a version of it. Ghostbusters in now a franchise - there are station houses all over the place. Our focus should be on a group who are either about to be fired or have already been. A big bad ghost shows up and takes down all the Ghostbusters (even the original crew) and our underdogs have to step up and save the day.

I read a draft dated sometime in 86 or 87 for GB2 that started in the Amityville horror house - the group cleans out the ghosts but it looses money for the guy who bought it - he was charging people to tour the place - this was when they wrote a part in for Eddie Murphy.

have you read aykroyd's original spec script?

it's interesting you mentioned the franchise thing. later drafts of the original film ended with GB franchising out. the original 4 were going to be working out of a huge high-rise... ecto units buzzing around all over. early drafts of GB2 and 3 that i've read both have the franchise thing in full swing. i'd be shocked if the current version of 3 doesn't have it.

 

[niennumb1]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

Akroyd said a few teases in this vid....

http://vimeo.com/11455001

I like the intentional "Let's get the delorean in the shot to make people jealous" shot.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

i'm totally with you. for me, it's like going to see a modern black sabbath concert... or the who... or blondie... or queen. they just aren't the same artists that they were in their golden day. it's kinda sad to see them still trying to go for it. i understand the cash-grab mentality, but come on! spielberg and lucas?! move on... do something else interesting. the STAR WARS prequels were awful. INDY 4 is unwatchable. ... and does anyone remember BLUES BROTHERS 2000?!?!



have you read aykroyd's original spec script?

it's interesting you mentioned the franchise thing. later drafts of the original film ended with GB franchising out. the original 4 were going to be working out of a huge high-rise... ecto units buzzing around all over. early drafts of GB2 and 3 that i've read both have the franchise thing in full swing. i'd be shocked if the current version of 3 doesn't have it.

The franchise approach is the easiest way to have the original four actors have as little to do with the film as possible, while still maintaining some sense of continuity, and allowing you to bring in an entirely new crew of GBs who can -- potentially "relaunch" the film franchise itself.

 

[d_osborn]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

The franchise approach is the easiest way to have the original four actors have as little to do with the film as possible, while still maintaining some sense of continuity, and allowing you to bring in an entirely new crew of GBs who can -- potentially "relaunch" the film franchise itself.

yep! ramis mentioned in an interview a few months ago that the original crew would take sort of a "doc brown role" to the new crew. it's all for nothing if the original humor isn't there, though. i could care less about a modern action/adventure ghostbusting tale without the style of humor from the first film.

 

[Rhett J Martin]

Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!

I say kill it or do it already . . .I'm sick of hearing about it. Listening to Dan and Harold talk about it grates on my ears like old people a the bar talking politics . . . Every time I talk to Ernie about it, he just sighs.