Ghostbusters 3 back in development hell?

The reason GB2 sucked so much was precisely due to it being more of a superhero film and not having enough jokes. If GB were to go down that route it would be terrible. Thats the reason kick ass is such a good movie, its not conventional and its a comedy. Superhero movies are generally crap.

 

I lasted all of the first 12 minutes watching Blues Brothers 2000.

 

Amother problem with GB2 was that it was trying to play-off the the "fame" the franchise had gotten from the cartoon series and, thus, tried to lighten up some -even though the cartoon was fairly dark many times in the early seasons.

And the Ghostbusters rap?

 

So the source for this info is the National Enquirer's gossip columnist? Is that reliable?

I'd still like to see this movie but honestly at this point I am sick of talking about it. Just do it already or don't.

 

GB3 should try to get Peter MacNicol's character to return. He was the funniest thing about GB2.

"Why am I drippings with goo..."

 

I was just about to say the same thing, but then I noticed they claim that "a source" told them all this, so it must be true!

 

You lasted longer than I did. Bad movie. Good soundtrack.

 

Murray goes off on Ghostbusters 3 again...

http://www.mania.com/murray-ghostbusters-3_article_122203.html

 

...In 3D!

But did Ghostbusters 3 ever really leave development hell? We've heard there's a script on the go for years now, then the videogame came and went with a brief resurgence in interest but we are still at the exact same stage of development as we were a decade ago.

 

^ There was more movement on the project in the last two years then at any point after the sequel so it got fans (including me) excited about this actually happening. In the interviews above Bill states that he'd consider doing one if the script was great (paraphrasing) which begs questioning what does he consider great? Being killed off at the start of the movie and returning as a ghost later on?

 

It can never be said enough how much of a full-of-himself prima donna Bill Murray is. The guy may be brilliant in some ways when it comes to his comedy and acting, but he's more full of himself than a black hole.

 

^ Agreed. I love his movies and his acting but he does come across as being very off standish and ego driven. If he can get into his Venkman uniform for "Zombieland" I don't see why he can do it again for the real thing.

 

Not to gainsay, but I'm pretty sure Woody was wearing the authentic costume in 'Zombieland', Murry was just running around with a vacuum cleaner pretending to be Ray Stanz no less.
I have to ask though, is Murry really that full of himself or is it just mostly shtick? With some comedians it can be very hard to tell.

As for his recent comments, I'd say he's considerably more upbeat that some people seem to be claiming. What I got from it is that he's encouraged by the interest but annoyed that it's all just talk and no action. We've heard that a script is being developed, but that doesn't mean he's read it or even knows it's done.

 

Yeah, Tallahasse had on the uniform and the prop back.

And from the GB1 commentary Ramis makes it fairly clear that Murray was a bit of a bitch during the shooting of the film(s). I think he really is full of himself.

 

I remember reading somewhere that Ramis and Murray had a major fall out after they did Groundhog Day. I might be wrong though.

 

If there is ever another Ghostbusters movie, it will be a reboot with a new cast. At best there will be cameos from a few of the originals, that's all. The direct sequel with the original cast in starring roles will never get off the ground.

It's the same reason there is no market for another Trek movie with the original or TNG cast, there aren't enough original fans who could support the movie all by themselves, and they need to attract a younger audience that wasn't even born in 1984 to ensure the $100+ million they end up spending on it will be recouped. They can't make "Grumpy Old Ghostbusters" and attract a huge audience, and you just know the accountants are going to want at least one sequel out of the deal.

 

They could have another GB franchise in either another part of the country, or world. There are sooo many haunted places in England, and France. Imagine a GB HQ set up in the Eifel Tower? They could even be getting advice from one Egon Spengler via Web Cam.

 

Murray basically stated in one of the interviews that I posted that the studio wanted to reboot the franchise. While I don't think you need to do that I like the idea of the Ghostbusters ushering and mentoring a new quartet and starting a new series of movies with a new cast with maybe Ramis and Ackroyd remaining as Executive Producers. It seems Bill is preventing this from happening too...or am I over stating the kind of veto power he has?

 

The studio doesn't need the old crew to usher in a reboot -- just like the 50 other remakes that came out in the past few years, they'd just start anew with new younger actors in the old roles.