Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

One of the reasons they aren't doing a direct sequel is that Sony is legally prohibited from doing so without the consent of Aykroyd, Murray and Reitman.

The other reason they aren't doing a direct sequel is that Ghostbusters was never designed in any way to be a franchise or to have sequels.

I mean, Christ, why does everything have to be a goddamn universe nowadays? God, this drive for everything being inter-connected is nothing short of exhausting. Continuity is poisonous to good storytelling and eventually you wind up with the horribly bland mediocrity of the Marvel movies because everything needs to fit together just so.

I mean, look at Ghostbusters II. There wasn't even a real creative push behind it -- the movie didn't get made because there was a great idea screaming to be told, it happened because Sony wanted another movie to cash in on the money it was making from the cartoon-based toys. Reitman and Ramis took a lot of convincing (and significantly higher paychecks), and Murray waited until an ungodly amount of money was offered to him.

There's nothing wrong with a franchise. On rare occasion, franchise movies can be really good. But Ghostbusters II is not one of them. It's not a bad movie. But it's so perfunctory -- like most comedy sequels.

All the sequel-pushing for another Ghostbusters set in that timeline is missing the point -- it's not a sci-fi / action movie about trapping ghosts. It's a comedy about three hucksters (and Ernie Hudson) who accidentally save the world, and just happen to do so while using some nifty backpacks that get used all of twice in the entire film.

From what we've heard of on-set reports, Feig has amped up the horror and is also doing some really different stuff with the characters; he hasn't just done a find-replace on the original script and called it a day. And he's doing it without having to work within the constraints of a 31-year-old movie.

 

Yes. This is completely separate from the 1984 film. Dan Aykroyd's bit is just a brief cameo gag.

Spoiler: Aykroyd's role

He plays a cab driver who says, "I ain't 'fraid of no ghosts," and Wiig's character makes the joke, "That's a double negative. That means you are afraid of ghosts!"

 

The position that Sony took was that because it's a brand-new script, story and cast, completely divorced from the 1984 and 1989 films outside of some basic core concepts, then it was not a continuation of the property per se and the studio was free and clear to do whatever it wished. That's how they got around Reitman and Murray (and, to an extent, Aykroyd, who was blindsided by the Feig announcement but later came around).

 

The contracts that Ramis, Reitman, Aykroyd and Murray signed for GB2 stipulate that no Ghostbusters 3 could be made without all of them signing off on it. Historically Murray was always the hold-up, although knowing what we do now about just how sick Ramis was and for how long it feels kind of ghoulish in retrospect to think of how Aykroyd was saying in like 2012 and '13, "Yeah, we're shooting in a few months." Anyway, back when Etan Cohen was still spinning his wheels on the GB3 script, Sony was getting ready to take the stance that Murray had abrogated his portion of the agreement by refusing to read any of the drafts, and as such had waived his veto powers. Then Ramis died and Feig approached the studio with his idea, which rendered the whole situation moot.

 

Reitman has no involvement with the 2016 film outside of a token producer credit, which Sony gave him because he had been working on Ghostbusters 3 for so long. He has had literally no part in the writing or production of the film.

Again, this is the contract that was signed when everyone came aboard for Ghostbusters II. It stipulated that Aykroyd, Ramis, Reitman and Murray all had to approve any Ghostbusters 3 film, and it was written that way because no one wanted to do Ghostbusters II in the first place, and Ramis and Murray in particular wanted to be sure that the property wouldn't be whored out as a semi-annual franchise (Murray's very fond of the original film and considers it one of his best roles). Murray's reticence is the reason Aykroyd's Hellbent script wasn't produced in 1999 / 2000.