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

[billcosby]

I don't think Dan would move forward on his project without Ernie.
I also think it's equal parts reboot and "pass the torch" sequel... set in the same continuity but Sony wants a new franchise.

It's still not really a project unless Sony "greenlights" it. Only then will ghostheads be celebrating.

[Gotham Central]

davejames wrote:

---

The problem with a reboot is that they'd pretty much have to retell the same story-- from the guys' first encounter with a ghost, to how they set up their business, to the conflicts they have with city officials, to their final heroic showdown at the end.

Obviously it's a great story, and the main reason that first movie worked so well, but we've already seen it. And there's no way a reboot could possibly do it any better.

I think they'd be better off just jumping forward in time and giving us a new story.

Or they could do a soft reboot and accept the contents of the first movie as having occured and move on from there. This is essentially what the cartoon did despite having changed quite a bit in the translation into animation/TV. In fact, it might be fun to do it as an 80s period peice. Or they could follow say the Superman Return's model and accept that the contents of the first film happend it just happened recently instead of 20 years ago (I think that the current Ghostbusters comics do this).

Of course, this is why I prefer bringing GB bact to TV. Remaking movies on TV is not unusual and they could even stretch the first mission out a bit. There are lots of ways of telling that first story in a fresh and interesting way. Imagine a version of the first Ghostbusters movie where the boys not only have to jumpstart their business, but have to contend with "competing" with all of the fake "Ghost Hunters" that run around on TV pretending to encounter ghosts. In the original movie they paid lip service to people not necessarily believing in what they do...but now they'd have to contend with the folks that don't beileve them but also with the flood of flakes that think that every gust of wind or bump in the night is their dead grandma trying to send them a message from beyond.

[Gotham Central]

davejames wrote:

---

Another problem I see (whether it's a reboot or sequel) is that those glowing ectoplamic ghosts of the 80s just aren't remotely scary or frightening anymore.

What really needs to happen (and I know it won't), is for the Ghostbusters to go up against the freaky, Ring-style ghosts and creepy, wall-crawling creatures of today's horror movies. That would be fun as hell to watch, and much more in the spirit of the original movie than what they're probably planning to make.

If we're not as freaked out by the ghosts are the Ghostbusters are, then the movie's just not going to work.

The ghosts in Ghostbusters were NEVER meant to be scary. They were supposed to be creepy/funny. There is a reason why Slimer ended up being the freaking mascot...kids loved him.

[Timby]

Gotham Central wrote:

---

The ghosts in Ghostbusters were NEVER meant to be scary. They were supposed to be creepy/funny. There is a reason why Slimer ended up being the freaking mascot...kids loved him.

Exactly. The original Ghostbusters is a comedy before it's anything else, with "love letter to New York City" being a very distant second. I think people sometimes forget that there are precisely two "ghost busting" sequences -- the Hotel Sedgewick, and the end at Central Park West. It isn't a sci-fi action romp, much as Aykroyd originally envisioned it as such.

I mean, think about it. The creature that is going to bring about the end of the world manifests itself as a gigantic fucking marshmallow man, and his entrance is shot like a Godzilla movie. Or, as I said a few months ago:

Ecto-1 is sleek, just uses blue lights, very plain bodywork and looks much more like an emergency vehicle. It works as a believable prop, but, more importantly, it's a brilliant punchline. Ghostbusters does a good job of delivering you something ridiculous and then being all "deal with it" about it. See also: The Stay-Puft reveal. Reitman's direction is so happy to stand back and laugh at what it's just shown you, which is one of the things that makes the film so much fun to watch, really.

Ecto-1A is about twenty feet taller, has these garish purple and green lights, scrolling digital message boards, hazard tape decals all over the bodywork, as well as that ridiculously meta logo. Design-wise, I think it's terribly cartoonish, and it loses the statement that the original car had, in being a tremendous contrast to the nuclear-powered hucksters driving it around. I totally get why it was done -- in that the marketing department had its paws all over Ghostbusters II from the very beginning -- and when I was a little kid, I thought it was awesome, but ... it's really just a toy.

Yeah, when I was six years old, I thought it was an amazing movie about these guys with awesome backpacks. But go and re-watch the movie again. The jokes are flying as often as every ten - fifteen seconds at some points.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

davejames wrote:

---

Obviously it's a great story, and the main reason that first movie worked so well, but we've already seen it. And there's no way a reboot could possibly do it any better.

Almost thirty years ago. Enough time has passed.

[Timby]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Almost thirty years ago. Enough time has passed.

I would agree that something new can be done with the property, taking it in a new direction. I just don't want to see a continuation -- there's nothing left to be done with the characters from the 1984 film.

[Saul]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Almost thirty years ago. Enough time has passed.

Yeah, it's too hard to be original anymore.

[Trekker4747]

Timby wrote:

---

I would agree that something new can be done with the property, taking it in a new direction. I just don't want to see a continuation -- there's nothing left to be done with the characters from the 1984 film.

I agree, but if they're going to do a continuation a "passing the torch" movie might work. I agree the comedy aspects of the first movie are very much there but it sill also has just enough edgy/actiony bits to it to make it along the line of a typical summer comedy/action movie. The second movie, however, threw the balance way off (as well as making the humor less sharp and more cartoony. Hell, more cartoony than even the cartoon was being!)

Like I said above, I think a more "serious" take on the franchise could very-well be interesting. My "problem" is giving threats or whatever more of a mundane setting or at least less of a "the world is at stake, here!" feel.

I mean, without the Ghostbusters being around the world went from Babylonian times or even earlier all the way to the mide-late 20th century wihout world-ending disasters. And had the Ghostbusters not been around Gozer would have taken over the world, or done whatever he planned to do when he "rose."

And had the Ghostbusters not re-assembled in 1989, Vigo would have risen and taken over the world. So, it's pretty damn nifty -and lucky- that the world went centuries without any trouble from the supernatural and then all of the sudden within five years of one another two ancient gods/powers almost rose and took over the world. Which raises the question:

If Gozer had been successful and been in "power" when Vigo rose, being reborn into the body of a sacrificed child, who would win in a fight?

So whatever the stakes are in any future Ghostbusters movies I hope it's not another "ancient god rises to take over the world" thing.

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, making the ghosts scary would be missing the point. They were never meant to be horror movies, but rather, they were lampooning them. Making the ghosts scary would just lower the accessibility of the franchise. And then there's the idea of toys, which means they want this to be accessible to children.

With so much time having taken place since the second movie, I'm kind of nervous. So much has changed since those movies, and a lot of it has to do with the different faster paced blockbusters out there now.

[Samurai8472]

Gotham Central wrote:

---

The ghosts in Ghostbusters were NEVER meant to be scary. They were supposed to be creepy/funny. There is a reason why Slimer ended up being the freaking mascot...kids loved him.

Ah the day's when preschool and kindergarten served "Slimer Kool Aid" or "Slimer HI-C"

[Donald Draper]

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"!

[Professor Zoom]

I don't understand how there could be "hardcore" fans of the movies. Seriously. There was ONE really fantastic movie and there was a shitty one. I guess there can be hardcore fans of ANYTHING... but they have to be so small in number to be really unimportant.

[Kelthaz]

Donald Draper wrote:

---

I wonder if hardcore fans will be satisfied by anything new that is made.

When have hardcore fans ever been satisfied when additional content is added to their "thing"?

[Reverend]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

I don't understand how there could be "hardcore" fans of the movies. Seriously. There was ONE really fantastic movie and there was a shitty one. I guess there can be hardcore fans of ANYTHING... but they have to be so small in number to be really unimportant.

This is the interwebs. There are hardcore fans of EVERYTHING.

[Donald Draper]

The two posts above are correct.

I suspect that the group I was referring to want a live action version of "The Real Ghostbusters" cartoon. Which was more serious than the first movie. They faced ghosts that were meant to be scary.