Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[Gotham Central]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

This is one situation where I don't understand why anyone would want a continuation rather than a reboot.

One of the grat things about Ghostbusters was that at a tie when Hollywood and America an in general was glorifying big business, banking and the wonderful world of megacorporations,, Ghostbusters gave us a story about a group of really smart, but eccentric guys who start a small business and frankly stumble onto the biggest event in human history. Its the little guys make it big...and they made "science" look kind of fun and cool (despite the total lack of actual science in any part of that movie).

Its the sotry of those guys that fun. Why would we care about a new generation of glorified exterminators. They should just find a new group of up an comming comedians and simply start over. Personally I think that Ghostbusters would make a great TV series. Afterall if Ghost Hunters can successfully chase after fake ghosts, and find an audience, surely the Ghostbuster can make it on TV. Plus for a cartoon, The Real Ghostbusters managed to put out quality product...so a live action TV series should be just as capable of making the concept work.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

I'd rather see a reboot than a sequel.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Yup, this is still filed under "I'll believe it when I see it."

Let me know when there's a trailer.

 

[davejames]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Its the sotry of those guys that fun. Why would we care about a new generation of glorified exterminators. They should just find a new group of up an comming comedians and simply start over. Personally I think that Ghostbusters would make a great TV series. Afterall if Ghost Hunters can successfully chase after fake ghosts, and find an audience, surely the Ghostbuster can make it on TV. Plus for a cartoon, The Real Ghostbusters managed to put out quality product...so a live action TV series should be just as capable of making the concept work.

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.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Some years ago, I would have been eager to see a Ghostbusters 3. Nowadays, though, I'm just not interested. If it is made, I would probably watch it on Netflix, but otherwise, no real desire, mainly due to exactly what's happening now; there's just no energy to it.

The first movie crackles with energy. It's funny as hell, it's quirky, it's goofball fun with some great character moments. The second GB wasn't as energetic or off the cuff, but I think it's still good for a laugh. The thing is, they ran out of steam rather quickly. This movie has been dying before it was ever made, and if it's made now, it will likely exist on life support the moment it hits the theater.

I might be wrong. It might end up being great. Hell, I was pleasantly surprised by the 2009 Star Trek movie, but it's still quite a stretch.

 

[davejames]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

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.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

I never found the ghosts in Ghostbusters to be scary to begin with.

 

[davejames]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Well they weren't terrifying or anything, but they were at least a bit creepy and you could buy them as a serious threat.

And when I was 10 I certainly remember being freaked out by those terror dogs.

 

[B.J.]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

The 11-year-old me found the terror dogs quite, uh, terrifying. But other than that, the ghosts weren't exactly meant to be scary (except maybe the librarian for just a moment).

I'm guessing Winston might still be around? Didn't see any solid mention of his inclusion.
If not around at start then be brought in later for help training, a type of coach?

I'm also surprised nobody mentioned him either. Personally, I think Winston would have probably moved on. Now that I think about it, he'd be a good antagonist in the form of a city servant.

 

[Samurai8472]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

The very first scene with the librarian and the ghost was eerie.

Louis being chased by the terror dog was sort of suspenseful when it switched to the dogs point of view

 

[ALF]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

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]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Its the sotry of those guys that fun. Why would we care about a new generation of glorified exterminators. They should just find a new group of up an comming comedians and simply start over. Personally I think that Ghostbusters would make a great TV series. Afterall if Ghost Hunters can successfully chase after fake ghosts, and find an audience, surely the Ghostbuster can make it on TV. Plus for a cartoon, The Real Ghostbusters managed to put out quality product...so a live action TV series should be just as capable of making the concept work.

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]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

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]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

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.

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]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

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]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

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.

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]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

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.

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

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

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.

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]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

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]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

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"