DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   Ghostbusters 3 (2020 D: Jason Reitman) (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/646449-ghostbusters-3-2020-d-jason-reitman.html)

Abob Teff 08-02-08 01:41 AM

It's been a long, long time -- but here is another edition of "Abob Teff's Random Page 3 Thoughts" ...

As for the Hell idea -- didn't Bill & Ted already do that? If not, I know that Halle Berry did -- or was that the Hell she puts us through in her movies?

I've said before and I'll say it again -- Evolution was as close to GB3 as we'll ever get. That movie really felt like that the script may have started as GB3 and then been adapted into a stand alone project.

What the hell is up with the new Mountain Dew flavors? Ehhhh....

Having said that -- David Duchovny would be a great addition to the GB crew.

Will Smith already did his version of Ghostbusters -- It was called Men In Black.

Here is a script idea -- and archive this so then I get some credit when it pops up on screen ... one of the Ghostbusters (odds are Venkman ... although Dan Aykroyd's looks anymore may indicate Ray would be the one who has "cashed in") has moved on from the group and franchised the Ghostbusters ... this cannot be used as a throw-away vehicle though to write out the originals. It can serve to bring in new cast and still keep the old crew in the film. Of course, Dan Aykroyd would have to use the line "We're getting the band back together."

Zen Peckinpah 08-02-08 09:34 AM


Originally Posted by Abob Teff
What the hell is up with the new Mountain Dew flavors? Ehhhh....

Voltage is the only good one...tastes like a carbonated take on the Ice Blue Raspberry Lemonade Kool-Aid. Super nostalgic and quite awesome.

CertifiedTHX 08-02-08 08:25 PM

The original is a true classic. Ghostbusters II was a big step down. Parts of it worked, but others were just silly, and not in a good way. I would love to see that long rumored CGI version of a sequel, though, with Bill, Dan, Harold, and Ernie voicing their characters.

Anyway, if a Ghostbusters 3 is, in fact, coming to the big screen, I will almost certainly give it my $7. Love Steve Carell and Seth Rogen, and a new Ghostbusters story could be great, if handled with care. Cautiously optimistic.

--THX

My Other Self 08-02-08 09:46 PM

To clear up any of this, all of this rumors that surfaced this week stemmed from - yes - a photoshopped picture by one of the members over at Ghostbusters Fans. Proton Charging had a contest a couple of months back where you'd photoshop the actors you could see fit in to a third film.

THERE IS NO TRUTH TO THIS RUMOR.

Some website picked up on the notion via the pic that it was happening, and one website picked it up from there and yadda yadda yadda.. there's a huge discussion on the matter over at GB Fans.

Here's the thing.. with the game being delayed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the franchise, the last thing coming anywhere is GB3. Aykroyd has stated numerous times that the game is essentially Ghostbusters III, taking elements from his first draft as well as an entirely new storyline.

So again, sorry to burst the bubble here, but that rumor has been debunked.

Also, on the subject of Ghostbusters II, it's pretty obvious Murray was going through the motions of being there. It's obvious. Before GB2 even happened all 4 GBs and Reitman sat down and wanted to reunite for another film - but not necessarily a sequel to Ghostbusters. Push came to shove though and we got GB2.

Given that I'm an 80s child, Ghostbusters is my favorite movie and I pretty much live for the franchise, I hold GB2 as equal as I do the first film. It has its merits. Maybe I'm more partial to it since I saw it in theaters when I was 3.. I dunno. But yeah.

No GB3 for awhile.

JeremyM 08-03-08 09:02 AM


Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC
GBII to me was just ok. I'll watch it if it's on for bits pieces for Ackroyd, Ramis, and Murray. Hudson really feels out of place in those films, especially in II. But I never go out of my way to see GBII. GBI was smart, witty as hell, and created a world that could make you believe that yes, Ghostbusters would be something worth having around...

I always felt like Hudson was one of the strong points, especially in II where I thought Murray was just terrible compared to his outstanding performance in the original. And you needed Hudson's character in the first because he was the normal guy that was just doing a job and not a scientist, or a pseudo-scientist anyway:)

Michael Corvin 08-03-08 03:32 PM


Originally Posted by mcfly
with the game being delayed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the franchise,

Where and when has this been stated? I know the Activision/Blizzard merger has shaken things up and Ghostbusters is in limbo right now but I've never seen a mention of holding it for an anniversary release.

My Other Self 08-03-08 04:10 PM


Originally Posted by Michael Corvin
Where and when has this been stated? I know the Activision/Blizzard merger has shaken things up and Ghostbusters is in limbo right now but I've never seen a mention of holding it for an anniversary release.

That's the game plan now since Activison put the kibosh on publishing it.

http://blog.ghostbusters.net/2008/07...-of-franchise/

I apologize if I worded my previous statement incorrectly.

Michael Corvin 08-03-08 10:53 PM

potentially delayed ≠ delayed

Superboy 08-04-08 12:17 AM

Ghostbusters 2 sucked, and was critically panned. It was also a cheap copy of the first movie. I don't see why a Ghostbusters 3 is even necessary.

pinata242 08-04-08 10:52 AM


Originally Posted by Superboy
Ghostbusters 2 sucked, and was critically panned. It was also a cheap copy of the first movie. I don't see why a Ghostbusters 3 is even necessary.

While I can't say I disagree with any of this, the good thing about stuff like this is that it doesn't have to suck merely by its existence and there's a chance it'll be worth watching. We all have the choice to not push play.

My Other Self 08-04-08 12:44 PM


Originally Posted by Superboy
Ghostbusters 2 sucked, and was critically panned. It was also a cheap copy of the first movie. I don't see why a Ghostbusters 3 is even necessary.

So because it was critically panned, that makes it a bad movie?

Don't watch a third movie if it's made then, because Lord knows it's bound to get some negative reviews.

Matthew Ackerly 08-04-08 12:55 PM

Ghostbuster 2 is awful, but I'm down for a third.

Superboy 08-04-08 01:46 PM


Originally Posted by mcfly
So because it was critically panned, that makes it a bad movie?

Don't watch a third movie if it's made then, because Lord knows it's bound to get some negative reviews.

Well, my point was that it seemed like the franchise was tapped, and the cartoon was the natural evolution for the series. Even the cartoon became repetitive after a while.

And I mean... critically panned movies tend not to have sequels made. At least, for a long time... take the Superman and Batman franchises for example. And the only reason they were brought back was because someone new was at the helm who wanted to do something different with the movies. Although the concepts i've heard for a GBIII sound... interesting... they don't sound like they'd make a good movie.

pinata242 08-04-08 01:47 PM


Originally Posted by Superboy
And I mean... critically panned movies tend not to have sequels made. At least, for a long time...

You mean like 20 years or so? ;)

Supermallet 08-04-08 02:45 PM


Originally Posted by Superboy
And I mean... critically panned movies tend not to have sequels made.

That's not true at all. Studios don't care how a movie is reviewed, they only care about how much money it makes. Every so often a movie is so universally reviled that the studio knows better than to try and milk it anymore, but that's the exception, not the rule. I'm sure Columbia would have loved to make more Ghostbusters movies, but Murray and potentially other members of the creative team weren't interested.

My Other Self 08-04-08 04:43 PM

I think a prime example of movies that are shit-canned in reviews but always get semi-sequels are those stupid parody movies (Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans, etc. etc). They're always guaranteed to bring in more than enough money to recoup the budget and then some.

There are also seven Police Academy movies, and it's not because each one got 4 stars from Ebert back in the 80s.

So, as Supermallet pointed out, it's definitely money. And say what you want, but with all of these 80s revivals a third Ghostbusters if done right could make bank.

Superboy 08-04-08 05:06 PM

i just think that the movie has limited potential. GBII and the cartoon really showed that the concept can only be stretched so far.

Although, I don't want to completely discount the idea, i'm not interested in seeing a sequel. I still love the first movie, and the first few seasons of the cartoon.

Also, I think Extreme Ghostbusters really left a bad taste in my mouth.

Brack 08-04-08 06:05 PM

GBII wasn't bad, it just wasn't as good as the first. but I think a lot of it has to do with the chemistry of the cast, which is undeniably there on the screen.

Michael Corvin 08-04-08 08:31 PM


Originally Posted by Superboy
i just think that the movie has limited potential. GBII and the cartoon really showed that the concept can only be stretched so far.

I don't disagree but, 1984(GB), 1989(GB2) and 2009(GB game) isn't stretching it too thin. I wouldn't consider the cartoon canon(not to mention I've never seen it).

Supermallet 08-05-08 05:32 AM

I wish they had gone with Murray's original idea, where his character dies early on in the film and spends the rest of the movie haunting the remaining guys as a ghost.

NoirFan 09-04-08 07:58 PM

From Variety article:

Columbia Pictures is getting serious about scaring up a new installment of its blockbuster "Ghostbusters" franchise.

The studio has set "The Office" co-exec producers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky to write a script for a film designed to bring back together the original cast of Harold Ramis, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson.

Rogue588 09-04-08 08:31 PM

Good luck with that.

[not that I wouldn't want to see it...]

Zen Peckinpah 09-04-08 09:23 PM

Fingers crossed. Imagine if Eddie Murphy played Winston and John Candy was Louis (as originally thought), the movie would NEVER happen because of Murphy's resentment of his past and Candy's death. Oh, and if they ever HAD to remake the original (god help me), this is what my Apatow-flavored cast would be:

Seth Rogen as Venkman
Paul Rudd as Stantz
Jay Baruchel as Egon
Craig Robinson as Winston
? as Dana
Leslie Mann as Janine
Michael Cera as Louis

I'd definitely see that, but let's not let it come to a remake of one of the greats.

My Other Self 09-04-08 10:18 PM

If they did a semi-reboot with the original cast involved, I am beyond there.

My Other Self 09-04-08 10:58 PM

<embed src="http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1579860695" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1772099378&playerId=1579860695&viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://console.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&domain=embed&autoStart=false&" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed>

Arthur Dent 09-04-08 11:25 PM


Originally Posted by Zen Peckinpah (Post 8918417)
Fingers crossed. Imagine if Eddie Murphy played Winston and John Candy was Louis (as originally thought), the movie would NEVER happen because of Murphy's resentment of his past and Candy's death. Oh, and if they ever HAD to remake the original (god help me), this is what my Apatow-flavored cast would be:

Seth Rogen as Venkman
Paul Rudd as Stantz
Jay Baruchel as Egon
Craig Robinson as Winston
? as Dana
Leslie Mann as Janine
Michael Cera as Louis

I'd definitely see that, but let's not let it come to a remake of one of the greats.

Michael Cera as Louis? Perfect! But not yet, too young.

A-aron 09-05-08 09:38 AM


Originally Posted by Zen Peckinpah (Post 8918417)
Fingers crossed. Imagine if Eddie Murphy played Winston and John Candy was Louis (as originally thought), the movie would NEVER happen because of Murphy's resentment of his past and Candy's death. Oh, and if they ever HAD to remake the original (god help me), this is what my Apatow-flavored cast would be:

Seth Rogen as Venkman
Paul Rudd as Stantz
Jay Baruchel as Egon
Craig Robinson as Winston
? as Dana
Leslie Mann as Janine
Michael Cera as Louis

I'd definitely see that, but let's not let it come to a remake of one of the greats.

You know how I know you're gay ... you like being slimed.

sauce07 09-05-08 09:59 AM

Thank god they are at least considering to do this right

wm lopez 09-05-08 11:09 AM

But the 2nd one was a very bad movie even though it was a hit.
I can't think of any movie where the movie going public wants a sequal to a lousy movie like GHOSTBUSTERS 2 .

islandclaws 09-05-08 11:18 AM


Originally Posted by sauce07 (Post 8919396)
Thank god they are at least considering to do this right


The consideration alone makes it wrong. This film should not be made. Period. Too much time has passed. If they're going to do anything, do a remake. I don't want to see a grumpy old Bill Murray strapping on a proton pack and grousing about ghosts.

tylergfoster 09-05-08 11:53 AM

If they were hiring a team of new Ghostbusters, IF they end up doing that, they should hire older new actors, like Steve Carell. I know he's kind of a predictable choice, but his comedy movie choices all allow him to be goofy, while his dramedy choices allow him to play it a little quieter -- I'd like to see him in a comedy where it was more like the latter, about one-liners than any sort of physical comedy. In general, I think that's lacking in today's comedies. And if they do go young, they should cast some people like that, such as Jay Baruchel, one of my favorite parts of Tropic Thunder and yet the least showy comedic role.

And the idea that they're racking up like an all-star comedy cast in any of these scenarios seems wrong too. There was Murray, the megastar, Aykroyd, strong supporting, and then Ramis was a writer and Ernie Hudson gets his jokes in just by being an everyman.

But I grew up with Ghostbusters, and it is so ingrained into what I knew as a kid that it went beyond potential childhood-ruining and I just go back to when I was nine and I wanted Ghostbusters III more than anything in the world. Even if I could go to the future and know this movie sucks, I think I still want them to make it.

devilshalo 09-05-08 12:18 PM


Originally Posted by HollywoodReporter
The original filmmakers, including director Ivan Reitman, and cast are aware of the project and involved in its development. Some original cast members might be involved, but the focus will be on a new cast of Ghostbusters.

Sounds more like a passin gof the torch than a reboot.

Shannon Nutt 09-05-08 12:18 PM

Bill Murray's the only real reason this hasn't happened...I have no doubt Ackroyd, Ramis and Hudson would sign up for a 3rd (and we really don't need Signorney Weaver, IMHO).

Ghostbusters II actually had a good beginning where everyone had essentially forgotten about them...if they expand on that in the sequel, I think they could put together a really interesting story.

Oh, and it HAS to be set in New York! No Los Angeles or another setting.

Gunde 09-05-08 02:17 PM


Originally Posted by Zen Peckinpah (Post 8918417)
Fingers crossed. Imagine if Eddie Murphy played Winston and John Candy was Louis (as originally thought), the movie would NEVER happen because of Murphy's resentment of his past and Candy's death. Oh, and if they ever HAD to remake the original (god help me), this is what my Apatow-flavored cast would be:

Seth Rogen as Venkman
Paul Rudd as Stantz
Jay Baruchel as Egon
Craig Robinson as Winston
? as Dana
Leslie Mann as Janine
Michael Cera as Louis

I'd definitely see that, but let's not let it come to a remake of one of the greats.

Yeah, no thanks

DthRdrX 09-05-08 02:40 PM


Originally Posted by wm lopez (Post 8919520)
But the 2nd one was a very bad movie even though it was a hit.

Yea, but it had one of my favorite movie moments in it:

WINSTON !!!!

GuessWho 09-05-08 03:08 PM

The Chicago Tribune's media columnist just posted the following:


Originally posted: September 5, 2008
Harold Ramis confirms 'Ghostbusters III'

I just received this e-mail from Harold Ramis confirming the forward progress on a third "Ghostbusters" movie (as mentioned earlier here), with Judd Apatow, some of his regular actors and perhaps Bill Murray involved:

"yes, columbia is developing a script for GB3 with my year one writing partners, gene stupnitsky and lee eisenberg. judd apatow is co-producing year one and has made several other films for sony, so of course the studio is hoping to tap into some of the same acting talent. aykroyd, ivan reitman and i are consulting at this point, and according to dan, bill murray is willing to be involved on some level. he did record his dialogue for the new ghostbusters video game, as did danny and i, and ernie hudson. the concept is that the old ghostbusters would appear in the film in some mentor capacity. not much else to say at this point. everyone is confident a decent script can be written and i guess we'll take it from there.
best,
harold


OK, so we're picturing Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson showing the ghost-busting ropes to Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, James Franco and Michael Cera. (Ramis already memorably and warmly played Rogen's dad in "Knocked Up.") Maybe Jason Segel or Craig Robinson fit in there somewhere.

Is this a "Ghostbusters" you'd want to call?

modfather 09-05-08 03:59 PM

Appealing to the younger Judd/Seth fans is what will sell the most tickets, obviously. But I, for one, would rather see the original four than the new crew.

Egon: "Here, let me show you how to use this Proton Pack!"
Seth Rogen: "Can I use it to get that hot girl's top off?"

...comedy gold...

freshticles 09-05-08 04:32 PM

Anybody but Steve Carrell and I'm there.

Zen Peckinpah 09-05-08 05:16 PM

I stand by my assumption on who should be involved. Awesome news if Apatow is indeed producing it.

invisiblegt 09-05-08 05:28 PM


Originally Posted by Zen Peckinpah (Post 8920692)
I stand by my assumption on who should be involved. Awesome news if Apatow is indeed producing it.

I suppose, should you stay with the casting you had earlier mentioned, that Jenna Fischer would not be a bad choice to play Dana. She has the beauty to pull the role off, with the "everywoman" aspect needed as well.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 AM.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.