Ghostbusters 3

[Guest Da Showstoppa]

Ivan Reitman has confirmed that he's going to be directing the third movie, so, in effect, all the pieces are in place (script, original cast, director, producers), so expect things to move pretty quickly from this point in time.

 

Well I hope it's as good as the first two - they are brilliant.

[Guest Dante Spears]

Edit: ignore, wrong thread.

[Guest The Beltster]

Anything that drives the memory of Ghostbusters 2 from my mind is a good thing, cant wait!

[Guest Da Showstoppa]

Anything that drives the memory of Ghostbusters 2 from my mind is a good thing, cant wait!

 

Aw, I thought GB II was okay (apart from the cringeworthy party scene at the beginning) plus any film that has the line "vhy am I drippink vith goo" in it can't be all bad.

[Guest The Beltster]

That little guy was gold all the way through the film, but overall I thought it sucked.

[DC 536]

Janosh is brilliant in every scene he appears. :lol

[Guest Jung]

I thought the second film was fine to be honest. While it's not as good as the first film, the first is a genuine classic film, it was never going to live up to that. As a standalone film, I thought it was fine.

 

It's like the last Indiana Jones film. I remember reading some people saying it's like a horrendous film with nothing good and I just think, jeez ok it's not Raiders but it's not awful. Some perspective I guess ultimately.

 

It's why I always worry about sequels in today's age because people have ridiculous expectations if the first film is great, that even if it's pretty damn good, it's still going to be perceived as being crap.

 

I don't expect Ghostbusters 3 to be anywhere near as good as the first film. Yet I'm sure it will still be fun, nostalgic and worth seeing, much like Indiana Jones was. Hopefully that's what everyone else will expect.

[DC 536]

Bill Murray has confirmed in an interview that he will be in the third movie AND that he WILL be a ghost, although his actual words were "I'll come back in Ghostbusters 3 only if I get to be a ghost. I said to them, 'I'll do it if you kill me off in the first reel.' So now they are going to have me as a ghost in the film", so it's unknown whether he's going to be a ghost from the start or meet his maker in a pre-credits sequence.

[DC 536]

In an update from the previous post, Bill Murray was on Letterman and part of the interview led to him talking about Ghostbusters 3. You can see the interview below, where he confirms what I said about being killed off in the first reel, but by the way he's talking, he's doubtful the film will ever get made.

 

[YOUTUBE]lcJPBVW-iiM[/YOUTUBE]

 

Of course, he could just be bluffing.

[DC 536]

The film could be in trouble...

 

No more Ghostbusters for Reitman?

Columbia keen on different direction...

BY Josh Winning

Mar 18th 2010 18:18PM

 

http://i43.tinypic.com/30iyvf7.jpg

 

That logo never seemed more fitting. Just when it looked like things were getting fired up over at the Ghostbusters threequel, proceedings may have hit a stumbling block.

 

Seems Sony Columbia are feeling a bit tetchy about Ivan Reitman taking the helm as director, and are keen for a younger, hipper new filmmaker to take the reins. Yuhuh, it’s Spider-Man all over again.

 

Except this time, it’s Reitman who wields the power. An intricate web of legal thingmebobs means that Reitman and his cast get the final say on the project, not the studio (now there’s an interesting concept – filmmakers actually being in control of their own stuff).

 

So, even if Columbia want to hire the former director of Hannah Montana or some such guff, Reitman and the triumvirate of Akroyd-Ramis-Murray are the ones who get final approval on anything Ghostbusters 3.

 

The question now is: will he give up on the project entirely, and shelve Ghostbusters 3 forever? He’s already lined up to direct Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher in cover-those-eyes-kids-rom-com Fuckbuddies (coming soon to a title-changing factory near you), so he’s a busy fella.

 

We’re guessing his decision will rest on the quality of the script’s second draft, due this May. At that point, any one of the power-wielding cast members – the decidedly unenthusiastic Bill Murray the most likely suspect – could pull out of the flick and doom it to an early grave.

Credit: Total Film

[dsrchris 190]

You know what, if Columbia are gonna stick their oar in an f*ck about with it, then balls to them. I say don't make it.

 

Better unmade than sh*t if you ask me.

[Guest Fiona]

I loved the first Ghostbusters but hated the second one. If the third is going to be as good as the first then I'm happy to wait but if not then I really don't care if they ever get it done.

 

I get tired of these movie studios taking so long to do anything and possibly screwing it up in the process. I say good to Murray and Co. for not giving up and standing their ground on this.

[Guest Dante Spears]

When has any third installment ever been an improvement on the second one? The only time I can think of that being the case would be the third Indiana Jones movie, but to be fair Lucas could have put no effort into that whatsoever and still ended up with something better then Raiders.

 

Better yet, when has something that's been in cryogenics for years ever been as good as the original? I direct you to the Star Wars prequel trilogy, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and Blues Brothers 2000 to name some. If history and that game are anything to go by, Ghostbusters 3 will be full of shallow, watered down copies of their original characters. It will also contain as many contrived reason to make homages to the original movie as it can fit in and contain new character with new and "popular" actors that will have fans of the original screaming that they ruined the franchise. It may or may not abandon any sense of development in order to accommodate references to the original in hopes of attracting the core fanbase or inability on the part of the directors to think of anything new.

[Fletch 204]

It'll be made, whether it's in game form again though is another question.

[Guest Fiona]

When has any third installment ever been an improvement on the second one?

 

Better yet, when has something that's been in cryogenics for years ever been as good as the original?

 

Any Ghostbusters would have been better than the second one which sucked balls in my opinion.

 

As for your second point. With the advances in special effects and the time on their hands to write a really great movie, Ghostbusters 3 has the chance to be the best one of all.

 

Have you made it your mission lately just to go from thread to thread picking apart posts? Movies more than anything else are really based on personal opinion. 100 people could see a particular movie and you'd have 100 different reactions from "Oh my god I love it, best movie ever" or "Total piece of trash, I want my money back" and everything in between.

[Guest John Hancock]

Better yet, when has something that's been in cryogenics for years ever been as good as the original?

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but, just for fun; Batman Begins. Check and mate sir, check and mate.

[Guest Saz]

Yeah but that's just a reworking of the same story.

 

I think, if a third film was coming, Sigourney Weaver would have to be left out, I mean how many times does he have to win her back???

[Guest Jung]

Batman Begins is hardly a re-working. Yeah it shares the "here's how Bruce Wayne's dad died" but apart from that they are completely different.

[Guest Dante Spears]

Have one off day and suddenly you're a troll is it now? Look back a couple pages, I've been expressing a distaste in this film for almost four months. Anything I've said is completely valid, am i not allowed to have opinions that go against everyone else? I would actually have some hopes for the film if the game hadn't proved any thing they can produce will make the same mistakes that numerous sequels before it has made.

 

Yeah, alright movies are completely subjective. But it's getting more common that people nowadays can't see the difference between a movie being great because it's made advancements on the concept or because your ecstatic because it's lathering there beloved franchise in tongue baths. And besides what are you going to get out of getting all happy about it. I've heard people saying that they think it'll be as good as the first Ghostbusters, which is essentially setting themselves up for a massive disappointment, I mean if it's good great, but if it fails people will either go crazy or force themselves into a denial that the movie was better then it actually is.

 

It was a point. And a valid point at that. Would you have preferred if I had just walked in going "Oh wow, this movie should be awesome, I'm so excited for it"?

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but, just for fun; Batman Begins. Check and mate sir, check and mate.

My point was more about films in a series, like Blues Brothers 2000, KotCS, and the prequel trilogy whereas Batman Begins is a re-imagining of the concept of Batman. If Batman Begins had been Batman V and continued the story of those campy 90's films then your statement would fit. You are right to a degree though, Batman Begins completely retooled the concept of Batman and advanced the concept of the franchise which is a rarity when there is a back log of movies. Reboots in general don't really suffer this problem because normally a director is taking the established content in a completely different direction, though then you have still have stuff that lings to the old fandom at the expense of developing anything.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Dante Spears

[BRM 220]

Revenge of the Sith was better than Phantom Menace..........