Ghostbusters 3

[Guest Dante Spears]

This is where that whole "personal opinion" thing makes arguments difficult. Revenge of the Sith was an okay film but I still rank the Phantom Menace as better and Attack of the Clones as the mid one. The problem with RotS is that it seemed to be taking refugee in the CGI in order to make up for it's weak, angsty story. Atleast Phantom Menace felt like a Star Wars film.

 

Actually I like to use the Lightsaber fight as the example here. In the original trilogy lightsaber fights were choreographed like a dance. The first one stuck to that with it's big lightsaber fight and it was three people doing good, wholesome swordfighting which is what the Lightsaber fights should be. Then the second one had Anakin and Obi Wan fighting Dooku like a lightsaber fight should be and then Yoda comes in and turns it into a joke. Then by the time the third one rolled around all pretenses of a good fight had been abandoned and we're left with something that resembles a circus act with the characters flying around the screen in increasingly ridiculous situations.

[Guest Saz]

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.

 

Wha?

 

Are you seriously downplaying the plot arc of Batman just to score a f*cking pedantic point over me?

 

It shares the whole bloody story of why Batman is what he is, you can't escape it, that is Batman, unless you completely glossed over the origin of Batman in the first telling, it's there everytime and all visions of it are a reworking of the original story, even the cartoons mention it.

 

Would you have preferred I'd said Gritty reboot instead?

Edited March 19, 2010 by Saz

[DC 536]

With the Batman movies, neither the 1960's Adam West spin-off from the TV series nor the Michael Keaton/Tim Burton classic from 1989 were origin stories (Batman was already fully formed at the start), while Batman Begins was, so, in that regard, the latter isn't a reworking of either of the former films.

 

Of course, certain themes cross over (it would really be difficult for them not to) and in the 1989 version, the origin is touched upon, but Batman Begins is an origin tale pretty much from beginning to end.

[Guest John Hancock]

.

 

Anyway, the origin stories in Batman Begins and Burton's Batman are different. In the original, Batman's parents are killed by The Joker, but, in Batman Begins, it's just some random criminal. The Joker also dies in the original, which contradicts the ending of Batman Begins, when they find the Joker cards.

 

I'm not sure who's argument this supports, but just throwing that out there.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Paul

[Guest Fiona]

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"?

 

First of all no one said you were a troll, secondly why would you have such distaste for a film that hasn't been made yet? For me I always wait and see the reaction to the film and then go see it myself. Lot's of times I go and see a film and love it but most everyone else I know couldn't stand it, and vice versa.

 

Yes your right about films being subjective to one's tastes, and no one in their right mind would go crazy or go into denial just because a movie they hoped would be good turned out to be a piece of shit. Most people are grounded in reality and watch movies for entertainment. If a movie did that to a person then a doctor's visit would be in order ASAP.

[Guest John Hancock]

Before I throw myself on my Entertainment Forum Leader sword in confused frustration, have people been editing aggressive posts into nice ones after the target of the aggression has already taken the bait or something like that? Because this thread is starting to look like a group therapy session for people with chronic victim complexes.

 

Ya'll stop it. Ya'll stop it at once.

 

No one's trying to get anyone in trouble, no one's trying to score pedantic points, no one's being personal, no one's settling old scores, and no one's called anyone a troll. Everyone just chill and go back to talking about, of all the ridiculous things for you all to get worked up about, GHOSTBUSTERS!

[Guest Fiona]

Dante and I are discussing Ghostbusters. I don't know about all this Batman stuff don't even remember watching the movie to tell you the truth.

[Guest John Hancock]

Dante and I are discussing Ghostbusters. I don't know about all this Batman stuff don't even remember watching the movie to tell you the truth.

 

I was the one who bought it up. Talking about that's fine, as the conversation went of an a bit of a tangent, but some people are just generally being a big grumpy trousers, or an equally large snarky pants, and it's really not called for. My mod hat is very much on, and the fun-train has officially been re-railed.

 

Choo choo!

[DC 536]

Before I throw myself on my Entertainment Forum Leader sword in confused frustration, have people been editing aggressive posts into nice ones after the target of the aggression has already taken the bait or something like that? Because this thread is starting to look like a group therapy session for people with chronic victim complexes.

As far as I'm aware, you can click on the "last edited by..." bit below a post to see what alterations have been made to posts.

[Guest John Hancock]

Aye, but I'm INCREDIBLY lazy :lol

[Guest Jung]

Wha?

 

Are you seriously downplaying the plot arc of Batman just to score a f*cking pedantic point over me?

 

It shares the whole bloody story of why Batman is what he is, you can't escape it, that is Batman, unless you completely glossed over the origin of Batman in the first telling, it's there everytime and all visions of it are a reworking of the original story, even the cartoons mention it.

 

Would you have preferred I'd said Gritty reboot instead?

 

As said by everybody else apart from the premise "it's about how Batman became Batman" they are completely different films, which don't share any of the same stories or the same structure.

 

Where is the whole Ra's al Ghul, Carmine Falcone, Jonathan Crane, Rachel Dawes etc etc in the Tim Burton film? So how is it shares the whole bloody story exactly? All it shares is the theme about how Batman came about, that's it.

 

That isn't a reworking. And please put your ego away with this point scoring nonsense.

 

Away back to Ghostbusters. I half want it to be made from the point of view of being greedy and loving the characters and films from when I was a child. But if there's too much red tape, people not wanting to be truly into it and no plot or story which would at least fit into the same ethos as the first two films, then why bother.

 

It's like making another Goonies film. There has been calls for it for years, yet its one of those catch 22's where even if they do make it, it will probably get slated cause people have unrealistic expectations.

 

I mean honestly when the new Star Wars were being made were people expecting films on a par with the originals?

[Guest Da Showstoppa]

I think they should leave Ghostbusters alone now. The first was fantastic, but II felt just a little laboured at times. With 18 years gone, the world has changed and comedy / filmgoing tastes have changed too. Ghostbusters belongs in another era, and should remain as a "classic" rather than risk diluting it or ruining it altogether. Sometimes Hollywood is so preoccupied with whether or not they can - than whether they should.

 

As for the Star Wars debate, I'd argue that Revenge of The Sith felt the most like a Star Wars story, and was the best of the three.

[Fletch 204]

UK, April 28, 2010 - Bill Murray continues to confuse and confound regarding Ghostbusters 3, with the star discussing his potential involvement in the project for the umpteenth time, but yet again leaving us none-the-wiser.

 

Speaking to ComingSoon about the first two films, Murray said "We made a great movie and then we made another one, you know? So we went to the well twice and it's almost impossible to do the second movie as well. Only horror movies get better as they go along because they have more money to spend for more crazy effects."

 

Murray did admit that it might be fun, if only for the on-set camaraderie. "The guys are funny, and I miss [Rick] Moranis, Annie [Potts] and Danny [Ackroyd]. Those people are some people that were really, you know, I miss them. I think that's really a big part of it."

 

However, the concept of Murray playing a ghost may not come to fruition, with the star revealing "Supposedly someone was writing a script where I actually got killed in the first reel and became a ghost, which I thought 'Well that's kind of clever anyway.' But then these guys that were supposedly the writers that were going to do it, they wrote a film that came out and people saw it and went 'We're not going to do it after all, are we?' So it's just kind of a dreamy thing."

 

So there you have it; Murray may, or may not be participating. Come on Bill - make up your mind!

 

IGN.com

 

Jesus Christ Bill, you've already killed off the momentum from the game release. Maybe Dan Akroyd needs to call you again to tell you to stop being a jerk again. You'll do f'in Garfield sequels, yet you refuse to commit to reprising your best role in possibly the greatest film franchise ever.

[Guest Jung]

Maybe that's why though. Garfield was sh*t so what does he have to lose if he makes more sh*t ones?

[Fletch 204]

Harold Ramis was on ABC and confirmed GB3 IS happening and will be out Christmas 2012. Wait 2 weeks for Bill Murray to deny it and kill this yet again

[DC 536]

A first-draft of the script has been handed in and now Raimis and Akroyd are in the process of tweaking it. Oh, and in a shocking turn of events, Bill Murray thinks it sucks.