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

[Anwar]

The cartoon had some good ideas that could be used for a movie, like the Peoplebusters.

[davejames]

Donald Draper wrote:

---

From what I have seen the hardcore fandom treats Ghostbusters as seriously as Star Trek fans do. Forgetting it is a comedy before anything else. I am guessing because they were kids when it came out. I am in that age group but now I see it for what it really was. I wonder if hardcore fans will be satisfied by anything new that is made. With or without Murray. Seeing a new movie as "too comedic"!

Sure, it's a comedy. But you still have to be able to take the threat seriously. The reason the first movie worked was because it DID have a bit of a dark edge to it (unlike the tame and family-friendly second movie), and had the characters going up against ghosts that were straight out of Poltergeist and the end of Raiders.

It's easy to laugh at those effects now, but I remember people jumping out of their seats all through that first movie.

[Timby]

davejames wrote:

---

(unlike the tame and family-friendly second movie)

People call the second film tame, and there are certainly some lighter elements to it than the first film, but it's fucking creepy at a lot of points, as well, and feels considerably darker: In Ghostbusters, Dana sees a dog in her fridge roaring at her. In Ghostbusters II, her baby is almost shoved in front of a speeding bus, her bathtub tries to eat her and then Janosz in drag steals her baby.

I've said before that Ecto-1A is the avatar for the confused, tonally discordant mess that Ghostbusters II is, both lighter and darker at the same time.

[Kelthaz]

Right, even in comedies villains tend to be (and I think should be) scary and threatening. That's not say that comedy villains need to be on the level of the TNG-Borg or the Shadows, but even No Heart in Care Bears was a legitimate threat with the power to do ... whatever he was trying to do. Was he trying to take over the world or something? Make people unhappy?

Anyway, despite Ghostbusters being a comedy, Gozer was a serious threat with the power to destroy the world and he needed to be for the movie to work. If the villain had been The Box Ghost from Danny Phantom the film would have lost something very important.

[Donald Draper]

Umm and what form did Gozer take? Oh yeah, that super scary Pillsbury Doughboy parody called the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man....

Give me a break! Yeah at certain points towards the build up to the climax the movie takes a slightly serious tone. But the payoff is a giant Marshmallow Man! Which deliberately undermines any pretense of seriousness that came before.

Ghostbusters is as Campy as the 1960s Batman tv series. Where the characters are played straight and serious to underline the absurdity of the situations they are in.

[Kelthaz]

Silly is not mutually exclusive with serious. Sure, the giant Marshmallow Man was hilarious, but would you want to get stepped on by it? I think not.

[Reverend]

For the record, when I first saw 'Ghostbusters' I was petrified by the library ghost and actually had nightmares of a terror dog coming up the stairs to get me...of course I was only 4 at the time...

And yes, I agree that part of what made the first film work so well was the lightning-in-a-bottle mix of humour, genuine suspense and an almost timeless art design. The sequel (which I do actually have a soft spot for) was on the other hand very much of it's time and not nearly as well balanced. It's by no means a *bad* film in it's own right though. I'm seen much worse comedies and much much MUCH worse sequels.

[Timby]

Reverend wrote:

---

It's by no means a *bad* film in it's own right though. I'm seen much worse comedies and much much MUCH worse sequels.

Ghostbusters II isn't necessarily bad, it's just ... aggressively mediocre, and it never really transcends its material. It's essentially a beat-for-beat remake of the original film with some different faces, and ultimately ends up feeling like the money-driven cash-in that it is.

That's why I'd much rather see a remake / reboot than another sequel. I'm incredibly excited by everything I've seen / heard about Jose Padilha's upcoming remake of RoboCop (the original being one of my favorite films), because it sounds like they're really doing something interesting with the property and taking it in some new directions, as opposed to just repeating the beats of the original. A Ghostbusters III that trots out four fat guys in their 60s as a cursory nostalgia bone to the fans ... the idea really doesn't do anything for me, and I think it runs a very big risk of becoming unintentional self-parody.

Twenty years ago, I could have seen there being grounds for one last adventure with the guys, because Ramis and Aykroyd hadn't completely lost the plot by then, and Ramis and Murray were still on speaking terms. But then Groundhog Day happened, and ... welp.

[Donald Draper]

I have read about the Groundhog Day disagreements. It amazes me that this created such a long term contention between them. Regardless of their different personal visions, the movie is widely considered a classic. Its not like it was a dud that they are trying to blame the other for its failure.

[B.J.]

Donald Draper wrote:

---

Umm and what form did Gozer take? Oh yeah, that super scary Pillsbury Doughboy parody called the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man....

Nit: "The Destructor" was the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Gozer was the super model with the flat top. Two separate characters.

[Reverend]

B.J. wrote:

---

Nit: "The Destructor" was the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Gozer was the super model with the flat top. Two separate characters.

Nit the Nit: No, actually Gozer *was* the destructor. Louis/Vinz went into this earlier in the film. It even calls itself "Gozer the Destructor."

Regardless, I find it interesting how strait the reveal of Stay Puft is played and how it never seems *too* silly (only a bit silly.) That's that delicate balance I mentioned before. It shouldn't work, but it does. Buggered if I know how.

[Owain Taggart]

I think things can still be a threat and be taken seriously even when something isn't absolutely bone chilling scary, at least to the viewer. In-universe, that thing was scary, no bones about it, and it did pose a threat. Remember, it could have even been worse as it had manifested itself by thought. Could have been a giant flaming bag of ... well, gotta be careful about those thoughts

[Timby]

Donald Draper wrote:

---

I have read about the Groundhog Day disagreements. It amazes me that this created such a long term contention between them. Regardless of their different personal visions, the movie is widely considered a classic. Its not like it was a dud that they are trying to blame the other for its failure.

It went deeper than "disagreements," though. They had protracted, drawn-out, nasty fights both on and off the set, and in addition to their visions of the film (Ramis co-wrote the thing and knew it was a comedy; Murray wanted to play it as some sort of existential drama -- I kind of understand why he loves working with Wes Anderson, now), both men got personal. Ramis supposedly brought up Murray's well-known infidelity and drug use in at least one argument, and Murray got even nastier. And then after Murray was done on the set, he went up to Ramis and said, "I have nothing more to say to you."

It's really an incredibly happy accident that Groundhog Day turned out to be such an amazing and beautiful film, given that its director and star were fighting like feral cats at every turn.

Reverend wrote:

---

Regardless, I find it interesting how strait the reveal of Stay Puft is played and how it never seems *too* silly (only a bit silly.) That's that delicate balance I mentioned before. It shouldn't work, but it does. Buggered if I know how.

Ramis and Reitman call it the domino theory of reality, which is to say that if you're slowly introducing more and more weird shit, then the audience can accept a hundred-foot-tall marshmallow man. Reitman isn't a particularly talented director, but he's very good at giving you something patently ridiculous, then stepping back and saying, "Deal with it."

[Rarewolf]

Timby wrote:

---

People call the second film tame, and there are certainly some lighter elements to it than the first film, but it's fucking creepy at a lot of points, as well, and feels considerably darker: In Ghostbusters, Dana sees a dog in her fridge roaring at her. In Ghostbusters II, her baby is almost shoved in front of a speeding bus, her bathtub tries to eat her and then Janosz in drag steals her baby.

Add the idea of a painting that really is watching you and Ray's possession.

I only saw the 2nd one at the cinema, but I have always had a preference for it. I'm not really a comedy film person though.

[davejames]

Owain Taggart wrote:

---

I think things can still be a threat and be taken seriously even when something isn't absolutely bone chilling scary, at least to the viewer. In-universe, that thing was scary, no bones about it, and it did pose a threat. Remember, it could have even been worse as it had manifested itself by thought. Could have been a giant flaming bag of ... well, gotta be careful about those thoughts

Agreed. As silly as Stay Puft looked, it was still clear that there was something much more dark and evil underlying it.