• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ghostbusters III... it's REALLY happening this time

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wenis

Registered for GAF on September 11, 2001.
BILL HADER! YAY!

FLlhy.gif


Love this guy, always wanted him as a Ghostbuster.
 
T

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Anticitizen One said:
Bill Hader is a bit too vulgar for a Ghostbusters film.
Click to expand...

Bob Saget was in Full House, and Saget can't say a sentence without cursing.
 
J

JoshuaJSlone

Member
Anasui Kishibe said:
remind me again why we need a GB movie that will never replicate the awesomeness of the prototype
Click to expand...
Well, if we're only going to allow movies as awesome as Ghostbusters to get made, the industry is going to implode.
 
N

NR1

Member
According to Ivan Reitman, Murray has the script, but just needs to take time to open it a read it.... oh, and he also mentions that Asthon Kutcher could be a new Ghostbuster... has anyone seen No Strings Attached???

Source (with video): http://www.digitalspy.com/
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
10 things that Ghostbusters 3 would need to get right

1. Don't leave New York City

Inexplicably, under the pretense of "keeping things fresh", some film franchises have ultimately elected to send their beloved characters from the settings that helped make them famous. The result? Near-universal disaster. I know it's not exactly in the geek genre, but a great example of this is Sex and the City, a New York franchise through and through. Sending the four main characters to Dubai in the TV series' second film foray elicited none-too-subtle Ishtar references and rightly so. Also, does anyone remember what actually happened in Home Alone 2? No? Not exactly a shock. The second film was a pale shadow of the first and one BIG reason for that was sending Kevin McAllister and the Wet Bandits to the "big city". Gee, I thought the name of the movie was Home Alone. One of the absolute worst things that a successful franchise can do is take a setting that moviegoers expect and are comfortable with and completely change it. If the Ghostbusters scriptwriters are suicidal enough to think about sending their heroes on some kind of ill-advised road trip to other climes, the third film is certain to tank.

2. Keep the deadpan humor

Ghostbusters, along with many other successful 1980s comedies, employed a more subtle humor than today's younger generation is generally used to. Something as minor as an arched eyebrow, a turn of the head, or a frozen smile was enough to attract laughter, because the comedy or absurdness of the situation needed nothing more. Yes, there was some physical comedy, largely provided by Rick Moranis as goofy nerd Louis Tully, but it was just an added facet and not something the film had to constantly rely on as a crutch. If you write a comedy properly, you will often find that you needn't include a dozen shots to the groin, imbecilic line screaming posing as humor, or over-the-top pratfalling slapstick. Suffice it to say that I am not going to be pleased if Dane Cook or Jack Black end up in the GB3 cast. Black can be funny, but I'm not interested in his particular brand of humor in this instance. And no, Dane Cook is not funny. Pretty much ever.

3. Write in a pro-active villain

Before Lord of the Rings villain Sauron's physical form was portrayed as a giant eyeball stuck at the top of a tower, reduced to looking around his neighborhood somewhat impotently, there was Vigo the Carpathian in Ghostbusters II. He was that guy who spent 90% of the film trapped in a painting. Now, as lame as that idea is, the cast was certainly game, pumping up Vigo's murderous reputation at every opportunity. Unfortunately, the climax left a lot to be desired, with actor Wilhelm von Homburg clumsily feeling his way through the role a la Hercules in New York era Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not even a Max von Sydow voice dubbing job could manage to steer Vigo's characterization away from its accidentally-comical outcome. A return to the Ghostbusters franchise will require villainy on a much larger scale than Vigo the Painting Guy. And with that being said...

4. Bring back Gozer the Gozerian

A far more challenging opponent than Vigo, Sumerian god Gozer the Gozerian nearly turned Manhattan into a rest stop for the entirety of Hell's incorporeal demons in the franchise's first go-round. Only a last-second and desperate plan to 'cross the streams' destroyed Gozer's dimensional portal and fried its latest incarnation as the giant Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. But who said Gozer was out of the picture forever? (I realize that Gozer's history was fleshed out in subsequent videogames, but they aren't exactly canon, now, are they?) A huge selling point for a potential screenplay is that Gozer is a shape-shifter, so another visit by The Traveler could assume literally any form that the production desires. Why not envision Gozer finding a loophole and making its way back to Earth in another form, looking to wreak revenge on the puny humans that banished it previously? Done right, it would be a tip of the hat to the first film and help bring in a new generation of younger fans that may not be all that familiar with the Ghostbusters mythology.

5. Talk Rick Moranis out of retirement (and get Annie Potts, too)

In my view, no Ghostbusters film would be complete without quirky accountant Louis Tully, played with hilarious perfection by Rick Moranis. Sadly, the death of Rick's wife Anne in 1991 struck Moranis incredibly hard and he retired from live action film soon after. In the ensuing years, Moranis has dabbled in music and taken a handful of voice-over jobs, but he hasn't acted onscreen since Honey We Shrunk Ourselves in 1997. News regarding his possible return hasn't been good, as sources as close to the potential production as Harold Ramis have claimed that Moranis is wholly uninterested in rehashing Louis Tully.

Another minor character that is integral to Ghostbusters canon is Annie Potts' sharp-tongued, but lovable, receptionist Janine Melnitz. Especially since Louis and Janine began an awkward courtship in Ghostbusters II, both are nearly crucial to a truly satisfying return to the franchise. Of course, if Moranis and/or Potts ultimately decline to reprise their roles, their absence can be written off by claiming that Tully and Melnitz married and moved away, but that is hardly what legions of fans want to see. If and when Bill Murray reads and approves the script, the entire ghost-busting team, along with Sigourney Weaver, will reportedly be on board. Hopefully, a green light from all involved will be enough to temporarily prod Moranis out of retirement and convince Potts to sign as well.

6. Do NOT mention the World Trade Center

Ghostbusters was filmed in 1984, Ghostbusters II in 1989, and the World Trade Center towers were destroyed in 2001. So now in 2011, we must make reference to the changed Manhattan skyline if another film is to be made, right? Absolutely NOT. Cinema patrons watch films to escape from reality. If somebody were to watch Paul Greengrass' United 93, for example, they'd know what they were about to experience and (presumably) prepared themselves for said experience. So imagine enjoying yourself in a return to a light-hearted adventure with the parapsychologists from NYC and suddenly a somber explanation about the Twin Towers' absence barges onto the screen like a nine-billion pound elephant. Talk about killing the mood. Everybody and their grandmother knows what happened on 9/11 and I'm sure as hell not looking for a reminder while watching a Ghostbusters movie, of all things. As important as it would be for GB3 to heavily feature New York City's spectacular urban scenery, the WTC disaster is not something that belongs in that particular parallel universe.

7. Just get Dana and Peter together already

The first film saw a charismatic, albeit pushy, Venkman continuously attempting to charm Sigourney Weaver's Dana Barrett and getting rebuffed at every turn. However, in classic 'guy gets girl' Hollywood fashion, Venkman and the rest of the busters save Barrett and Louis Tully in the end and the two share a smiling kiss. But by the time the Ghostbusters II plotline rolls around, Barrett has been married, divorced, and had a baby boy and her ex-husband/baby's father is not Peter Venkman. Once again, the paranormal professionals save the day, this time rescuing Dana's son Oscar from demonic possession, and once again it seems as if Dana and Peter might finally be an item. But are they? I can't say for certain, but they should be. Opening GB3 with yet another "Peter and Dana like each other but aren't together" subplot would be a bit much by this point. I think the proper course of action would be to finally throw the two together and allow the screenplay to explore a bit of relationship humor when the situation allows. Hasn't Peter waited long enough?

8. Don't overdo the special effects

The proton pack beams in the first two films were nothing necessarily groundbreaking, but they looked great for their time. Happily, they also hold up quite well even under present scrutiny. Not only are the effect great, but the interwoven orange and blue beams motif is an iconic image. Rightfully or not, diehard fans of a franchise expect certain things out of future installments, and Ghostbusters fans are no different. One of the puzzle pieces of a GB3 film that would be most heavily critiqued would be the special effects. If there's one thing that recent Hollywood blockbusters have taught us, it's that a focus on style over substance can lead to cinematic catastrophe (I'm looking at you, Star Wars prequels). No amount of eye candy can properly take the place of a great story. So don't "update" the proton packs, special effects guys, or turn the Ecto-1 into KITT from Knight Rider. Sharpen the edges, brighten the colors, and then leave it alone, so you can focus on writing a worthy narrative. It's what the fans want.

9. Pick the right guys for the new team

Many opinions have been bandied about concerning what the possible plot in a third Ghostbusters film might be, but one thing that seems almost universally agreed upon is that the old team will be retiring and passing the torch to a younger and fresher crew. As the rumors have flown with ever-greater velocity pertaining to possible Ghostbusters 3 casting news, it seems as if dozens of new cast members have been rumored to be strapping on the proton packs. From Bill Hader and Will Forte (pictured above) to Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Paul Rudd, Anna Faris, and more, there is no end to the possibilities. It is here that the screenwriters may be tested most thoroughly. The new team needs room to shine, but not enough that they upstage the Ghostbusters that we've come to know and love. And not only will the screenwriters need to be careful of how they draw up such an event, but the actors will need to be of the proper cloth. Excessive mugging for the camera, a propensity for overt physical comedy, and an inability to play off Bill Murray's famous ad-libbing are traits of actors that need not expect a second phone call during auditions. Wooden relationships between characters and implausible, forced interactions between actors that are just wrong for the part will sink a third movie as surely as the worst villain or shoddy special effects.

10. Dead or alive, give Venkman a chance to shine

Another famous rumor regarding Ghostbusters 3 is that Bill Murray was quoted months ago as saying that the only way he would participate in the shoot was if Venkman was killed off in the first reel. He later allegedly modified that somewhat to saying that he wanted Venkman dead and wandering about for the rest of the film as a ghost. Whether his opinion has again changed or not is unknown, but what is certain is that Murray is currently the lone roadblock to getting the ball rolling on production. No disrespect meant to the rest of the brilliant original cast, but Murray is the undisputed star of the franchise and he needs his opportunity to shine. In the years since the Ghostbusters films ended, Murray has, if anything, emerged as an even more famous and indecipherable figure, with amazing stories of popping up uninvited at frat parties and taking all job offers through a secret 800 number becoming part of Hollywood legend. If the series' third film does indeed get off the ground, whether Venkman is alive and kicking or a collection of ectoplasmic goo is beside the point. Filmgoers will have one last shot to see Murray don the famous gray jumpsuit and go "we came, we saw, we kicked its ass" on the worst that NYC's apparition population has to offer. It's Murray's movie and everyone else is just along for the ride. So give him what he wants, Sony, and I'll think you'll happily find that it's what we want, too.
Click to expand...

Makes a lot of good points:

-One of the things I loved about the two films is the deadpan humor and subtle facial gestures. Just look at the beginning of the first film when Ray busts in room and Peter talks to him. Ray says "No you're coming with us...." and Peter gives this look and halfway turns his body.

-Staying in NYC is a must. Fuck the other world plot.

-Bringing Gozar back? I think it's actually a good idea. The door was closed preventing Gozar to reak havoc, but who says he/she is dead?

-Female ghostbusters? Asthon Kutcher? UGH. I'll continue to say it again: I know that everyone is old now, but I honestly believe all four original cast members should don the packs again for one last time to complete the trilogy. Let's face it. The original movies didn't involve a lot of running and whatnot. There were two major scenes with the GBs weawring the packs and that was it. Why not do it again? I thought Bill Murray looked great wearing the pack at that stupid Spike TV event awhile back.
 
D

Deku

Banned
They don't have to bring Gozer back. In fact I prefer they don't.

Ghostbusters 3 can also be crushed by the need to do fan service and I consider Gozer or any overt links to the 1st one as such acts of fan service.

What they need to do is have the characters naturally evolve based on where we left off in Ghostbusters II.
 
H

Henchmen21

Banned
Deku said:
They don't have to bring Gozer back. In fact I prefer they don't.

Ghostbusters 3 can also be crushed by the need to do fan service and I consider Gozer or any overt links to the 1st one as such acts of fan service.

What they need to do is have the characters naturally evolve based on where we left off in Ghostbusters II.
Click to expand...
Exactly. All That sounds like just remaking GB1. We don't need to remake it. Hell that's the one major thing that bothered me about the game was too many links to the first movie. The RGB guys got it right when they said not to dwell on the first movie. Also, that list is totally off on Vigo too. It says he barely showed up till the end but neglects to mention that that's the same thing they did with Gozer. Kept building him up till the end when he finally shows up. Besides, Vigo got way more screen time than that.
 
Davey Cakes

Davey Cakes

Member
I actually like Vigo as a villain. That painting is so friggin' creepy, and a lot of the events connected to Vigo are cool. For example, anything involving possessed Yanosz, the river of slime, burning photos, etc.

Agreed on the point that GBIII shouldn't be like a remake and shouldn't make too many callbacks to either of the previous movies. Of course, throwing in some references is fine (like how GBII mentioned blowing the top off a high-rise) but that's it.

The suggestion of bringing Gozer back is exactly why fan input creates a slippery slope.
 
L

layzie1989

Member
Also, does anyone remember what actually happened in Home Alone 2? No? Not exactly a shock. The second film was a pale shadow of the first and one BIG reason for that was sending Kevin McAllister and the Wet Bandits to the "big city". Gee, I thought the name of the movie was Home Alone.
Click to expand...

woah woah woah, home alone 2 is a classic, and just as good if not better than the original
 
C

CF_Fighter

Member
layzie1989 said:
woah woah woah, home alone 2 is a classic, and just as good if not better than the original
Click to expand...

Agreed, the film was at a much more memorable point in my childhood. Ghostbusters 2 is the same way for me. I don't think I've ever watch GB1 all the way through, but I've watched 2 numerous times.
 
A

AVclub

Junior Member
I thought this thread got bumped because Bill Murray was talking about it on Howard Stern this morning. He says, "The script is over there somewhere. I gotta find it and look at it and maybe call Ivan."

Apparently he doesn't seem to be thrilled with the idea. He gets that the studios want to continue the franchise but hates doing sequels. Ghostbusters 2 is apparently the only one he's ever done in his career and claims he was sort of tricked into it by agents and such.
 
M

Mr. B Natural

Member
We really cant let dogs lie can we? Gotta appease the man-children at all times.

Has the movie industry officially become the game industry yet...or do I have to wait until all that is left in hollywood's creative box are sequels and spin-offs?

^Bill Murray gets its. Love that guy. I'd actually lose a little respect for the man if he does Ghostbusters 3, but it sounds like he gets it.
 
D

Deleted member 13876

Unconfirmed Member
AVclub said:
I thought this thread got bumped because Bill Murray was talking about it on Howard Stern this morning. He says, "The script is over there somewhere. I gotta find it and look at it and maybe call Ivan."

Apparently he doesn't seem to be thrilled with the idea. He gets that the studios want to continue the franchise but hates doing sequels. Ghostbusters 2 is apparently the only one he's ever done in his career and claims he was sort of tricked into it by agents and such.
Click to expand...

Garfield 2.
 
N

Nekofrog

Banned
Ghostbusters II gets too much hate. While not on the same level as GB1, it succeeds on different levels that the first one didn't actively try to tackle very hard. Even though both are comedies, GB2 has more of a "horror" tint to it than the first one that I enjoyed (severed heads on pikes, the flaming photo scene, possessed Yanosz).

It also goes for a more formally presented form of humor as opposed to GB1's subdued form, which I think it does very well. Sure it's different, but its not worse.

I was born in '84, so I grew up with the GB movies LESS as a comedy and more as an adventure. I only learned to appreciate the humor as I got older, but in my heart it's still an adventure.

Nils said:
Garfield 2.
Click to expand...

He was tricked into the first Garfield, apparently.
 
B

beelzebozo

Jealous Bastard
leave pete venkman out of it. new young ghostbusters please. concept's solid enough to transition smoothly to a new cast, given they hire the right folks. i like james franco. sam rockwell fits.

dismissing new ghostbusters outright to me seems like dismissing STAR TREK TNG if there's no shatner.

different is wise.
 
MisterHero

MisterHero

Super Member
beelzebozo said:
dismissing new ghostbusters outright to me seems like dismissing STAR TREK TNG if there's no shatner.
Click to expand...
everything really is worse without William Shatner though

Perfect example: Star Trek Generations was awesome because he was in it, but it was also awful because he died
 
B

beelzebozo

Jealous Bastard
MisterHero said:
everything really is worse without William Shatner though

Perfect example: Star Trek Generations was awesome because he was in it, but it was also awful because he died
Click to expand...
but this could be FIRST CONTACT.
 
T

Talladega Knight

Member
Nekofrog said:
Ghostbusters II gets too much hate. While not on the same level as GB1, it succeeds on different levels that the first one didn't actively try to tackle very hard. Even though both are comedies, GB2 has more of a "horror" tint to it than the first one that I enjoyed (severed heads on pikes, the flaming photo scene, possessed Yanosz).

It also goes for a more formally presented form of humor as opposed to GB1's subdued form, which I think it does very well. Sure it's different, but its not worse.
Click to expand...
i'm in the same camp of people who absolutely adores Ghostbuster II (as much as part 1), but i always thought GB1 had more of a "horror" tint to it than part 2, which i always viewed as a little more light-hearted. PG-13--->PG
 
D

Deleted member 13876

Unconfirmed Member
Nekofrog said:
He was tricked into the first Garfield, apparently.
Click to expand...

I know, that story's hilarious, but it still doesn't explain why he agreed to do the second one.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
How the hell did GB2 have more horror? GB2 was a more lighthearted sequel. Fuck, even the music was more lighthearted.

GB1 was pretty damn scary. The overall atmosphere, the music, and those terror dogs. They're still scary to look at:

Terror_Dog_02.jpg
 
M

Messypandas

Member
I was always creeped out by the river of slime as a kid. Especially the bit where the tentacle tries to grab the baby in the bath. Still gives me the heeby jeebies
 
B

beelzebozo

Jealous Bastard
Messypandas said:
I was always creeped out by the river of slime as a kid. Especially the bit where the tentacle tries to grab the baby in the bath. Still gives me the heeby jeebies
Click to expand...

river of slime, photo developing studio catching fire, ray going nuts after looking at painting, yanosz's eyes lighting up in the dark hallway, the creepy ghost nanny kidnapping the baby. . .

i'm sorry, but this was a scary movie to me as a child. and viggo the carpathian is horrifying.
 
N

Nekofrog

Banned
beelzebozo said:
river of slime, photo developing studio catching fire, ray going nuts after looking at painting, yanosz's eyes lighting up in the dark hallway, the creepy ghost nanny kidnapping the baby. . .

i'm sorry, but this was a scary movie to me as a child. and viggo the carpathian is horrifying.
Click to expand...

Dozens of severed heads on posts with a scream track.

Sorry, GB2 had a higher horror content than the first. To anyone who says otherwise, just watch it again.

The thing about GB2 is it was a lot more up front with what it presented than GB1's subdued, almost subconscious presentation. Everything in GB2 was up and in your face; the comedy, the horror, the effects. It was all MEANT to stand out. In GB1, it just kind of melts in and is much more natural.

I grew up with the first one on video, and it never once scared me. I saw GB2 in theaters and it goddamn terrified me at some points.
 
F

freethought

Member
beelzebozo said:
river of slime, photo developing studio catching fire, ray going nuts after looking at painting, yanosz's eyes lighting up in the dark hallway, the creepy ghost nanny kidnapping the baby. . .

i'm sorry, but this was a scary movie to me as a child. and viggo the carpathian is horrifying.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that Janosz too? I'd swear it was the same actor dressed up as a nanny.
 
A

Anticitizen One

Banned
Ghostbusters 2 was on par with the original Nightmare on Elm Street and Silent Hill 2 in terms of horror/scares.

the tunnel scene alone....*shudders*
 
N

Nekofrog

Banned
Goddammit you guys, now I have to watch GB2 again. I just popped the bluray of GB1 in a few hours ago. Wish GB2 had a bluray release. Please be streaming on netflix, please be streaming on netflix...

edit: AWESOME IT IS
 
H

Henchmen21

Banned
Jason's Ultimatum said:
How the hell did GB2 have more horror? GB2 was a more lighthearted sequel. Fuck, even the music was more lighthearted.

GB1 was pretty damn scary. The overall atmosphere, the music, and those terror dogs. They're still scary to look at:

Terror_Dog_02.jpg
Click to expand...
This I take exception to. II's music is way better than I's bland elevator affair. The heroic theme (that plays at the end of the battle in the courthouse) alone is better.

Shame there's no OST to 2 out (come on Lala land records! release this already. You've done other more obscure movie releases)
 
G

G_Berry

Banned
The only way this could work is if the OG cast play the lead roles.

They could crack jokes about how each has let themselves go over the years, dust off the old ecto 1 and the equipment and realize they need new, up to date shit etc.

The last thing you want is a new "fresh" young cast making jokes about the old timers ala Indiana Jones (mouth vomit).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sigourney Weaver in Talks to Join ‘The Mandalorian & Grogu’
17
1K
Cyberpunkd replied
Nicolas Cage to star in Madden NFL video game origin biopic directed by David O. Russell
13
955
DryvBy replied
Gareth Edwards set to direct new Jurassic World movie, screenplay by David Koepp
47
3K
RJMacready73 replied
Sony Gives 'Ghostbusters: Afterlife' Writers an Overall Deal (Good Sign for a Sequel)
42
3K
Darkmakaimura replied
The Ghostbusters Ultimate Collection Boxed Set Includes the Test Screening Version of the Original Ghostbusters
7
1K
OmegaSupreme replied
Top Bottom