Ghostbusters update

[Spaceman Spiff]

Tharpdevenport wrote:

---

Winning an Emmy doesn't equal "great" nor does it make them people who should write a Ghostbusters movie. Gustavo Santaolalla won two Oscars after all...

So aside from awards, critical and financial success, what other barometer is there to measure greatness in your eyes? Besides ample use of MS Paint, I mean.

[Worf412]

Tharpdevenport wrote:

---

Especialyl when it's written by people who write "The Office" -- one of the unfunniest shows I have ever witnessed.

Hey Tharp, I'm a fan of the office, and I don't want anybody to not like it... It's just that good!

After having observed your sense of humor though your self-made thread bombs, I think I can help. Here's the Office catering to your specific joke style.



Hopefully, the next time you watch the Office, you'll think of this picture, and it'll make you smile.

[tharpdevenport]

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

---

So aside from awards, critical and financial success, what other barometer is there to measure greatness in your eyes? Besides ample use of MS Paint, I mean.

Since you're quitre taken with my posting and would rather read them than ignore -- I'll tell you what else is a barometer for "greatness" when it comes to "Ghostbuster":

Original writers. GB2 may not have been so good, but it still had it's laughs and interest, and is miles better than, say "Men In Black 2".

Aside from the regular actors appearing, the original writers should also have a say in the actors, would should be "Actors" and not just famous names or people we see everyday or could "sell" a film.

The score should be traditional; not "hip-hop fusing" like "Babylong A.D." or any crap RZA scores. And prefferably done by his son or one of the orchestrators from the first film (who also compose scores).

[Spaceman Spiff]

Tharpdevenport wrote:

---

Since you're quitre taken with my posting and would rather read them than ignore

Not true. I ignore your posts quite often. But I like Ghostbusters.

-- I'll tell you what else is a barometer for "greatness" when it comes to "Ghostbuster":

Original writers. GB2 may not have been so good, but it still had it's laughs

Yeah, about four.

and interest, and is miles better than, say "Men In Black 2".

What did Aykroyd, Ramis, Lee Eisenberg or Gene Stupnitsky have to do with Men In Black II? Do you seriously mean to make your point by selecting a random sequel as an example? By that logic, you could say that Ghostbusters 3 will be great because The Empire Strikes Back was miles better than Star Wars.

Aside from the regular actors appearing, the original writers should also have a say in the actors, would should be "Actors" and not just famous names or people we see everyday or could "sell" a film.

What makes you think they don't? The whole thing hinges on all four actors returning, which puts them in the position of power. This thing won't get made unless it's a script they want to film.

I'm just going to speculate crazily and assume that Eisenberg and Stupnitsky were selected by Ramis to write this movie, since they wrote the one he just directed.

[tharpdevenport]

"Newsradio" is a good office comedy, but I wouldn't want the writers from that show doing GB3.

[Timby]

Tharpdevenport wrote:

---

Fact of the matter is that a script is already made. Only thing holding it up is Bill Murray. And since he doesn't want to do it (last time saying unless he died and was a ghost) and they aren't even going to redo the script to accomidate Murray's absense

This is so wrong as to be utterly hilarious.

Yes, Hellbent exists as a script. And, yes, Murray had agreed to do it, provided he died in the opening act and returned as a ghost in the climax -- which was in the draft. Aykroyd accommodated Murray's requests -- Venkman was killed during the script's opening twenty pages, in the now-clichéd in media res opening of movies. The Ghostbusters were fighting a beast, and Venkman bit the dust, which led to the Ghostbusters 2-like opening of a crisis being concluded with a cut to black and the Ghostbusters logo. He returned at the climax, when Hell had taken over Earth, and as such the beings residing in Hell were now on Earth -- including Venkman, which prompted some silly lines by Stantz and Egon about how it was fitting that Venkman wound up there.

However, the resulting script was so horrible that even Ivan Reitman (who, at the time, held one of the refusal rights to further Ghostbusters properties -- Aykroyd, Ramis, Reitman and Columbia / Sony all had to sign off -- though I believe that contract is no longer in effect) told Aykroyd that the thing was unworkable and, in light of Aykroyd's refusal to start from scratch, told him "Fine, I'll sign off on it, do what you want, but I won't be involved." That's when Ramis decided that he would direct.

The insistence that Aykroyd and / or Ramis write the script for a Ghostbusters 3 is laughable, given Aykroyd's propensity for being batshit crazy and Ramis' spotty track record over the last decade and a half.

And even Ivan Reitman made My Super Ex-Girlfriend.

[Broccoli]

Harold Ramis confirms this apparently with Judd Apatow attached as a producer (maybe director - speculation on my part). I gotta say, I am a little disappointed. But, who knows, maybe Ghostbusters who are slacker/stoners who are sex-crazed and shout "fuck" every two minutes will be comedy gold.

Link.

[Samurai8472]

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

---

I'm sure the plot would have something to do with them coming out of retirement. That, or they're about to go into it.

That's what I liked about ghostbusters, they were just glorified exterminators.

"Suck in the guts guys, we're the ghostbusters"

[roguephoenix]

Emh wrote:

---

Bleah, writers from The Office? Why not Aykroyd and Ramis? Call me both skeptical and not optimistic.

maybe... they're going for that "unscripted" type of story. a sort of... "documentary" type film... or something like that.... >_<

[TGTheodore]

Norrin Radd wrote:

---

Please no. If they couldn't even recapture the magic in the sequel, what makes them think they could do it over twenty years later?

Greater objectivity.

--Ted

[Kaijufan]

Norrin Radd wrote:

---

Please no. If they couldn't even recapture the magic in the sequel, what makes them think they could do it over twenty years later?

Moments of greatness do shine through in Ghostbusters 2.

When I watch the film I get the feeling that there was very heavy interference from the studio and that Aykroyd and Ramis weren't allowed to make the movie they wanted to.

[Samurai8472]

cardinal biggles wrote:

---

I guess like Indy 4, they figure if they can't recapture the magic, they can at least cash in on your nostalgia.

I get that same feeling when people want a back to the future 4. It would probably be focused on the brown family since they already have 4 people for the poster

marty
marty and doc
marty, doc and clare
doc, clare, jules and verne

and it would probably be kid friendly.

[davejames]

Kaijufan wrote:

---

Moments of greatness do shine through in Ghostbusters 2.

When I watch the film I get the feeling that there was very heavy interference from the studio and that Aykroyd and Ramis weren't allowed to make the movie they wanted to.

Yeah you can tell the studio tried to soften everything up and make it more "family friendly". The edgy humor was gone and the ghosts were just a lot less creepy.

[Broccoli]

davejames wrote:

---

Yeah you can tell the studio tried to soften everything up and make it more "family friendly". The edgy humor was gone and the ghosts were just a lot less creepy.

Probably had something to do with the cartoon which was pretty popular at the time.

[nevermore]

Apatow and the people from The Office? Sounds good so far. Get back to me when Murray signs on.