Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ramis!

[Timby]

You're essentially right. As I've said earlier, unless the contracts have changed (and I don't think they have, based on Reitman's "his deal is complicated" statement a few months ago), no Ghostbusters film project can move forward without the consent of Aykroyd, Ramis, Murray and Reitman. But I don't think that Murray is the only crink in the flow. If you listen to Ramis' interviews over the last year or so, when asked about Ghostbusters 3, he chuckles, in sort of a parent's "that's nice" manner, then says it's on the way. Sony, correctly, understands that Aykroyd can't write a script for shit on his own, and Ramis doesn't care to the point that he pawned it off to his Year One goons. If he had the energy for this project, he would have collaborated with Aykroyd on, at the very least, a first draft. But he doesn't. Again, this is a movie being made for the sake of being made (and I really hope that it gets derailed again), not for any great creative reason.

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, it seems like at this point it would be made in order to cash in, and not because they have a great story they've been waiting to tell. If the enthusiasm isn't there, then it comes across as a bad idea. Ghostbusters comes across to me as a franchise people should be doing for fun and not for the money.

[JarodRussell]

Timby wrote:

---

Do you have a problem with either of these statements?

Yes, I have a problem with these unneccessary bashes. Would you do that with members of this board?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Timby wrote:

---

Fans want a movie with the original crew busting ghosts one last time. That isn't what they're going to get. Sony wants a movie that can launch a whole new franchise of Ghostbusters films, merchandise, etc.

And what's peculiar and annoying is that if everyone would give up on the former - which will never be done satisfactorily, given the personalities and timing - the studio could probably do well with the latter.

Yes, us old folks would be unhappy - but that doesn't mean that the project wouldn't be successful or that it couldn't be done well on those terms, for a new audience Whereas, frankly, if we get what we prefer - the old crew busting ghosts - it's almost guaranteed that the project that results from this process will disappoint and annoy us.

[Admiral_Young]

Frankly all I want is a good, entertaining story. The nostalgic part of me who's a fan of the franchise and the original characters of course wants one last film with them, but that doesn't seem like it's gonna happen. The next best thing would be a reboot with competent actors with a decent script. That doesn't seem like it will happen because of the right's issue/Murray's contract. So we're stuck in a rock and a hard place as the saying goes.

[I Grok Spock]

Dennis wrote:

---

Whereas, frankly, if we get what we prefer - the old crew busting ghosts - it's almost guaranteed that the project that results from this process will disappoint and annoy us.

cf. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[Captain Craig]

I really like Crystal Skull, not perfect but better than the 'net gives it credit for.
If it were as bad as the 'net said it was it wouldn't still be in the Netfilx top 100 films rented/viewed 2yrs later. The fact is it's an enjoyable movie despite some flaws.

If I got a GB3 that was that good I'm for it.

[Admiral_Young]

I liked Crystal Skull as well. For all of it's faults and flaws, it's no where near as bad as "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen".

[LitmusDragon]

I wonder if Bill has watched Ghostbusters II lately. I really don't think it's that bad a movie. Yeah there's some stuff that doesn't quite work in it but it's hardly the worst movie ever made.

[Admiral_Young]

Probably not, but it's clear from all the interviews his given in the past that he's not a fan of it. In the interview with Stern he goes on to say that it didn't turn out the way it was originally presented to him which makes me wonder about the original pitch to him. I take those comments as he was pitched a totally different story than the one we eventually got.

[The Fatman]

I remember reading an article from a year or so ago that not only do Aykroyd, Ramis, and Reitman control the rights, that Ivan Reitman has right of first refusal to direct and Sony wants "fresh eyes" on the franchise... which is another stumbling block.

I have also heard that no one is overly enthused about the script as it currently exists, which primarily stars Oscar Barrett-Venkman joining the business after Peter's death.

[I Grok Spock]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

I really like Crystal Skull, not perfect but better than the 'net gives it credit for.

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

I liked Crystal Skull as well.

Perhaps I should have said "We don't need another Blues Brothers 2000."

I certainly liked parts of KOTCS - primarily in the first couple of acts. Hell, I've got the Blu-ray on my shelf. But it just didn't come together for me and really went off the rails in the latter half. Kind of like Die Another Day.

Anyway, on topic, I agree that GB3 would be better off as a full reboot.

[Donald Draper]

I remember in an issue of Starlog at time of Ghostbusters II Murrary said he wanted it be called "The Last of the Ghostbusters".

I always assumed it was his desire to limit endless sequels. Perhaps an early pitch to him was a true ending to their adventures.

I am also a fan of the most recent Indiana Jones. At least there was a strong desire of all the prinicpals to return. While this whole thing reeks of a cynical money grab.

Another problem is I don't think Ghostbusters ever properly established itself as a franchise. The second film owed too much of its plot and characters to the first one. So now there is an expectation of seeing Louis and Dana again. With Indiana Jones, you just put him into a new adventure. Its hard to imagine that Peter, Ray, Egon, and Winston have been living in that same Firehouse busting ghosts for over 25 years. The second film already did the "lets bring the gang back together" plot.

[Admiral_Young]

Didn't they only make GBII in the first place due to the success of the cartoon at the time?

[Timby]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

Probably not, but it's clear from all the interviews his given in the past that he's not a fan of it. In the interview with Stern he goes on to say that it didn't turn out the way it was originally presented to him which makes me wonder about the original pitch to him. I take those comments as he was pitched a totally different story than the one we eventually got.

Nah, the story was pretty much the same from first draft to final. Basically, Murray's displeasure with Ghostbusters II stems from how he only agreed to do the sequel because he thought it would be another fun experience, like the original, and it was a very, very tense set with very little improv, and the characters / comedy took a back seat to special effects (the latter being his big gripe). He feels the movie wasn't very funny at all, and his displeasure with it was kind of the first spark in the massive blowup that he and Ramis later had on Groundhog Day.

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

Didn't they only make GBII in the first place due to the success of the cartoon at the time?

Essentially, yes. The first movie was still selling like wildfire on home video, and The Real Ghostbusters was moving metric fucktons of merchandise. It was a movie made simply because Columbia wanted to strike while the iron was hot.

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Yes, I have a problem with these unneccessary bashes. Would you do that with members of this board?

I'm sure Mssrs. Aykroyd and Murray are positively wounded to the core by some guy on a Star Trek message board jokingly calling one "a crazy bastard" and pointing out the other's decades-long drug habit, and I'm sure they're honored by your white knighting.

The Fatman wrote:

---

I have also heard that no one is overly enthused about the script as it currently exists

This is what happens when you hire the writers of motherfucking Year One to write your script.